recommendation hearing in New York

2013Fire Dist. v Schiano, 16 NY3d 494, 499 [2011]).

2013Fire Dist. v Schiano, 16 NY3d 494, 499 [2011]).

2024Likewise, " 'a court's sua sponte departure from the Board's recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the [offender] of a meaningful opportunity to respond' " ( People v Chrisley , 172 AD3d 1914 , 1915 [4th Dept 2019]; see People v Montufar-Tez , 195 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2d Dept 2021]; People v [*2]Maus , 162 AD3d 1415 , 1417 [3d Dept 2018]; People v Segura , 136 AD3d 496, 497 [1st Dept 2016]).

2022As a result, "a court's sua sponte departure from the Board's recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond" ( People v Segura , [*2] 136 AD3d 496, 497 [1st Dept 2016]; see Montufar-Tez , 195 AD3d at 1052 ).

2019As a result, "[a] defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned" ( Griest , 143 AD3d at 1059 ; see Correction Law § 168-d [3]; Maus , 162 AD3d at 1416-1417), and "a court's sua sponte departure from the Board's recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond" ( People v Segura , 136 AD3d 496, 497 [1st Dept 2016]; see Hackett , 89 AD3d at 1480 ).

2018Similarly, "a court's sua sponte departure from the Board's recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to be respond" ( People v Segura , 136 AD3d at 497 ; see People v Hackett , 89 AD3d at 1480 ).

2024Likewise, " 'a court's sua sponte departure from the Board's recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the [offender] of a meaningful opportunity to respond' " ( People v Chrisley , 172 AD3d 1914 , 1915 [4th Dept 2019]; see People v Montufar-Tez , 195 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2d Dept 2021]; People v [*2]Maus , 162 AD3d 1415 , 1417 [3d Dept 2018]; People v Segura , 136 AD3d 496, 497 [1st Dept 2016]).

2022As a result, "a court's sua sponte departure from the Board's recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond" ( People v Segura , [*2] 136 AD3d 496, 497 [1st Dept 2016]; see Montufar-Tez , 195 AD3d at 1052 ).

2015The Board was entitled to make a finding contrary to the hearing officer’s recommendation, as long as substantial evidence supported the determination (see Matter of Corcoran v City of Newburgh, 237 AD2d 518, 519 [1997]).

2015The Board was entitled to make a finding contrary to the hearing officer’s recommendation, as long as substantial evidence supported the determination (see Matter of Corcoran v City of Newburgh, 237 AD2d 518, 519 [1997]).

2013The determination of the Fire Commissioner of the City of Mount Vernon, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer, and affirmed the denial of the petitioner’s application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a (2), was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Refino v City of Mount Vernon, 104 AD3d 693 [2013]; Matter of Davenport v City of Mount Vernon, 96 AD3d 838, 838-839 [2012]; cf. Matter of Ridge Rd.

2013The determination of the Fire Commissioner of the City of Mount Vernon, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer, and affirmed the denial of the petitioner’s application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a (2), was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Refino v City of Mount Vernon, 104 AD3d 693 [2013]; Matter of Davenport v City of Mount Vernon, 96 AD3d 838, 838-839 [2012]; cf. Matter of Ridge Rd.

2010Due to their personal involvement in the matter, the two members of the Board who testified at the disciplinary hearing should have disqualified themselves from reviewing the recommendation of the hearing officer and acting on any of the charges (see Matter of Nicoletti v Meyer, 42 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2007]; Matter of Correia v Incorporated Vil. of Northport, 12 AD3d 599, 600 [2004]; Matter of Clinch v Town of Hyde Park, 277 AD2d 451, 452 [2000]; Matter of Pryor v O’Donnell, 262 AD2d 648, 648-649 [1999]).

2006The Commissioner of Management Services (hereinafter the Commissioner) properly disqualified himself from reviewing the recommendation of the hearing officer and acting on any of the charges because of his personal involvement with the case (see Matter of DiMattina v LaBua, 262 AD2d 409, 410 [1999]; Matter of Pryor v O’Donnell, 262 AD2d 648, 648-649 [1999]; Matter of Brundage v Yonkers Parking Auth., 220 AD2d 411 [1995]; Matter of Lowy v Carter, 210 AD2d 408, 409 [1994]).

2010Moreover, under the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to back pay and benefits, even if the proceedings against him eventually lead to termination of his employment (id. at 188; Matter of Sinicropi v Bennett, 60 NY2d 918 [1983]; Matter of Wiggins v Board ofEduc. of City ofN.Y., 60 NY2d 385 [1983]).

2010Additionally, the petitioner is entitled to back pay and benefits, even if the proceedings against him eventually lead to termination of his employment (see Matter of Gomez v Stout, 13 NY3d 182, 188 [2009]; Matter of Sinicropi v Bennett, 60 NY2d 918, 920 [1983]; Matter of Wiggins v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 385 [1983]).

2009The court remitted the matter back to Commissioner Stout “for the appointment of a duly-qualified individual authorized to review the recommendation of the hearing officer” ( 51 AD3d 1021, 1021-1022 [2d Dept 2008]).

2009The court remitted the matter back to Commissioner Stout "for the appointment of a duly-qualified individual authorized to review the recommendation of the hearing officer" ( 51 AD3d 1021, 1021-1022 [2d Dept 2008]).

2025I find this is logically problematic, albeit I concede that there is no requirement that a transcript be made ( see Matter of Greenberg v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y. , 176 AD2d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 1991]).

2024Here, as the People correctly concede, they failed to provide defendant with the requisite 10-day notice that they intended to seek a determination different from that recommended by the Board inasmuch as they did not request an assessment of 10 points under risk factor 12 for failure to accept responsibility until the day of the hearing ( see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Scott , 96 AD3d 1430, 1430 [4th Dept 2012]; see generally Worley , 40 NY3d at 134-136).

2024"It is well established that due process requires that sex offenders receive notice and an opportunity to be heard at their risk classification proceedings" ( People v Maurer , 220 AD3d at 1063 [citations omitted]). "[A] court's sua sponte departure from the Board's recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to . . . respond" ( People v Maus , 162 AD3d 1415 , 1417 [3d Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2021Here, as correctly conceded by the People, the County Court's assessment of these points, without prior notice to the defendant, deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment ( see People v Chrisley , 172 AD3d at 1915; People v Segura , 136 AD3d at 497 ; see also People v Manougian , 132 AD3d 746, 747 ).

2015Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. *1199 Review of an administrative determination made after a trial-type hearing directed by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Jennings v New York State Off of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227, 239 [1997]; Matter of Harrison v Palumbo, 122 AD3d 634, 635 [2014]).

2015Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. *1199 Review of an administrative determination made after a trial-type hearing directed by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Jennings v New York State Off of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227, 239 [1997]; Matter of Harrison v Palumbo, 122 AD3d 634, 635 [2014]).

2010Additionally, the petitioner is entitled to back pay and benefits, even if the proceedings against him eventually lead to termination of his employment (see Matter of Gomez v Stout, 13 NY3d 182, 188 [2009]; Matter of Sinicropi v Bennett, 60 NY2d 918, 920 [1983]; Matter of Wiggins v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 385 [1983]).

2010Due to their personal involvement in the matter, the two members of the Board who testified at the disciplinary hearing should have disqualified themselves from reviewing the recommendation of the hearing officer and acting on any of the charges (see Matter of Nicoletti v Meyer, 42 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2007]; Matter of Correia v Incorporated Vil. of Northport, 12 AD3d 599, 600 [2004]; Matter of Clinch v Town of Hyde Park, 277 AD2d 451, 452 [2000]; Matter of Pryor v O’Donnell, 262 AD2d 648, 648-649 [1999]).

2010Due to their personal involvement in the matter, the two members of the Board who testified at the disciplinary hearing should have disqualified themselves from reviewing the recommendation of the hearing officer and acting on any of the charges (see Matter of Nicoletti v Meyer, 42 AD3d 722, 722-723 [2007]; Matter of Correia v Incorporated Vil. of Northport, 12 AD3d 599, 600 [2004]; Matter of Clinch v Town of Hyde Park, 277 AD2d 451, 452 [2000]; Matter of Pryor v O’Donnell, 262 AD2d 648, 648-649 [1999]).