Moulton v. Fischer, 100 A.D.3d 1131 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2012). · Go Syfert
Moulton v. Fischer, 100 A.D.3d 1131 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 1131 “while 'a hearing officer's actual outright denial of a witness without a stated good-faith reason, or lack of any effort to obtain a requested witness's testimony, constitutes a clear constitutional violation requiring expungement, most other situations constitute regulatory violations requiring a…”2 citing cases2 citing courts quote it · 1 listed here
  • Griffin v. Prack, 110 A.D.3d 1287 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Here, we agree with respondent that the denial of the witnesses constituted a regulatory violation, and the proper remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Morris-Hill v Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978 [2013]; Matter of Mo…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Francis Moulton
v.
Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 8, 2012.
Published opinion
100 A.D.3d 1131
Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with unauthorized use of a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of THC. He was found guilty of the charge at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing. After the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Initially, respondent concedes, and we agree, that the Hearing Officer improperly denied petitioner’s request for a witness who could testify as to whether the medications and supplements that petitioner was taking would have caused a false positive urinalysis result. Notably, while “[a] hearing officer’s actual outright denial of a witness without a stated good-faith reason, or lack of any effort to obtain a requested witness’s testimony, constitutes a clear constitutional violation [requiring expungement,] [mjost other situations constitute regulatory violations [requiring a new hearing]” (Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 AD3d 118, 121 [2006]). Here, inasmuch as we agree with respondent that the above error was not of constitutional dimension, we deem it appropriate to remit for a new hearing (see Matter of [*1132] Torres v Track, 95 AD3d 1518, 1519 [2012]; Matter of Buari v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1147, 1148 [2010]).

Given this result, it is unnecessary to address petitioner’s remaining contentions.

Peters, EJ., Mercure, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.