matter for a new hearing in New York

2017In view of this, and given that substantial evidence otherwise supports the disciplinary determination, Supreme Court properly remitted the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Hand v Gutwein, 113 AD3d 975, 976 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 866 [2014]; Matter of Morris-Hill v Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978 [2013]).

2017In view of this, and given that substantial evidence otherwise supports the disciplinary determination, Supreme Court properly remitted the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Hand v Gutwein, 113 AD3d 975, 976 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 866 [2014]; Matter of Morris-Hill v Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978 [2013]).

2017In view of this, and given that substantial evidence otherwise supports the disciplinary determination, Supreme Court properly remitted the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Hand v Gutwein, 113 AD3d 975, 976 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 866 [2014]; Matter of Morris-Hill v Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978 [2013]).

2017In view of this, and given that substantial evidence otherwise supports the disciplinary determination, Supreme Court properly remitted the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Hand v Gutwein, 113 AD3d 975, 976 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 866 [2014]; Matter of Morris-Hill v Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978 [2013]).

2014Accordingly, we find that under the circumstances herein, Supreme Court correctly remitted the matter for a new hearing rather than order expungement (see Matter of Morris-Hill v Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978-979 [2013]; Matter of Gross v Yelich, 101 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2012]; Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 AD3d at 121 ).

2014Accordingly, we find that under the circumstances herein, Supreme Court correctly remitted the matter for a new hearing rather than order expungement (see Matter of Morris-Hill v Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978-979 [2013]; Matter of Gross v Yelich, 101 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2012]; Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 AD3d at 121 ).

2018Contrary to petitioner's contention, the court properly annulled the determination and remitted the matter for a new hearing under the circumstances presented in this case ( cf. Matter of Tolliver v Fischer , 125 AD3d 1023, 1023-1024 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 908 [2015]). "[T]he failure to produce a transcript [does] not involve a substantial evidence issue or implicate any fundamental due process rights," and there are no equitable considerations here that warrant expungement of petitioner's institutional record ( Matter of Auricchio v Goord , 273 AD2d 571, 572 [3d Dept 2000]).

2013We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that expungement is required here and, thus, remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Hayes v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1587, 1588 [2012]; Matter of Auricchio v Goord, 273 AD2d 571, 572 [2000]).

2016Given that the Hearing Officer put forth a good faith reason for the denial, this violated petitioner’s regulatory right to call witnesses and the proper remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Lopez v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2012]; Matter of Santiago v Fischer, 76 AD3d 1127 , 1127 [2010]).

2013Here, 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 Moulton v Fischer, 100 AD3d at 1131; Matter of Lopez v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1069, 1071 [2012]).

2016As the record reflects that the Hearing Officer gave a good-faith basis for the denial of the witnesses, this amounts to a regulatory violation such that the proper remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Griffin v Prack, 110 AD3d 1287, 1287 [2013]; Matter of Moulton v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1131 , 1131-1132 [2012], lv dismissed 20 NY3d 1021 [2013]).

2013Here, 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 Moulton v Fischer, 100 AD3d at 1131; Matter of Lopez v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1069, 1071 [2012]).

2013Inasmuch as this constitutes a regulatory violation, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of McFadden v Bezio, 92 AD3d at 989-990 ; Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 AD3d 118, 121 [2006]; Matter of Martinez v Goord, 15 AD3d 737, 738 [2005]).

2013Inasmuch as this constitutes a regulatory violation, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of McFadden v Bezio, 92 AD3d at 989-990 ; Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 AD3d 118, 121 [2006]; Matter of Martinez v Goord, 15 AD3d 737, 738 [2005]).

2012The remedy for this procedural error, in the context of the instant administrative segregation hearing, is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Rondon v Selsky, 274 AD2d 713, 714 [2000]; Matter of Blake v Coughlin, 189 AD2d 1016, 1017-1018 [1993]).

2012The remedy for this procedural error, in the context of the instant administrative segregation hearing, is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Rondon v Selsky, 274 AD2d 713, 714 [2000]; Matter of Blake v Coughlin, 189 AD2d 1016, 1017-1018 [1993]).

2024Based on the multitude of errors, the passage of time and the foregoing concerns, we would reverse the order on appeal in its entirety and remit this matter for a new hearing ( see Matter of Theressa M. v Gaddiel M. , 228 AD3d 1040 , 1041 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Nicole B. v Franklin A. , 210 AD3d 1351, 1354-1355 [3d Dept 2022], lv dismissed 39 NY3d 1092 [2023]; Matter of Nicole TT. v David UU. , 174 AD3d 1168 , 1172 [3d Dept 2019]), which should reach a determination "based on the best interests of the child and not a desire to punish a recalcitrant parent" ( Matter of Aden HH. v Charish GG.

2024Based on the multitude of errors, the passage of time and the foregoing concerns, we would reverse the order on appeal in its entirety and remit this matter for a new hearing ( see Matter of Theressa M. v Gaddiel M. , 228 AD3d 1040 , 1041 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Nicole B. v Franklin A. , 210 AD3d 1351, 1354-1355 [3d Dept 2022], lv dismissed 39 NY3d 1092 [2023]; Matter of Nicole TT. v David UU. , 174 AD3d 1168 , 1172 [3d Dept 2019]), which should reach a determination "based on the best interests of the child and not a desire to punish a recalcitrant parent" ( Matter of Aden HH. v Charish GG.

2022The court should not have granted the petition to vacate the arbitration award because the award had a rational basis ( see generally Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. , 1 NY3d 72, 79 [2003]).

2022The court should not have granted the petition to vacate the arbitration award because the award had a rational basis ( see generally Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. , 1 NY3d 72, 79 [2003]).

2014Accordingly, we find that under the circumstances herein, Supreme Court correctly remitted the matter for a new hearing rather than order expungement (see Matter of Morris-Hill v Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978-979 [2013]; Matter of Gross v Yelich, 101 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2012]; Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 AD3d at 121 ).

2014Accordingly, we find that under the circumstances herein, Supreme Court correctly remitted the matter for a new hearing rather than order expungement (see Matter of Morris-Hill v Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978-979 [2013]; Matter of Gross v Yelich, 101 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2012]; Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 AD3d at 121 ).

2013We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that expungement is required here and, thus, remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Hayes v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1587, 1588 [2012]; Matter of Auricchio v Goord, 273 AD2d 571, 572 [2000]).

2013We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that expungement is required here and, thus, remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Hayes v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1587, 1588 [2012]; Matter of Auricchio v Goord, 273 AD2d 571, 572 [2000]).

2012The remedy for this procedural error, in the context of the instant administrative segregation hearing, is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Rondon v Selsky, 274 AD2d 713, 714 [2000]; Matter of Blake v Coughlin, 189 AD2d 1016, 1017-1018 [1993]).

2012The remedy for this procedural error, in the context of the instant administrative segregation hearing, is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see Matter of Rondon v Selsky, 274 AD2d 713, 714 [2000]; Matter of Blake v Coughlin, 189 AD2d 1016, 1017-1018 [1993]).

2006Under the US Constitution, inmates charged with violations of prison disciplinary rules have a conditional right to call witnesses; for example, prison officials have discretion to deny an inmate’s requested witnesses in order to avoid jeopardizing institutional safety or correctional goals (see Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539, 566 [1974]; Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 146-147 [1990]).

2005Under the circumstances presented here, where petitioner does not dispute that the evidence in the record was sufficient to sustain the determination, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing in which petitioner should be provided with the reason for the witness’s refusal to testify (see Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 148-149 [1990]; Matter of Payne v Coughlin, 160 AD2d 1108, 1109-1110 [1990]; Matter of Shipman v Coughlin, 98 AD2d 823, 824 [1983]; cf. Matter of Hartje v Coughlin, 70 NY2d 866, 868 [1987]).

2024County Court should then assess points in accordance with SORA and, upon a request for a departure from the presumptive risk level, exercise its discretion to conduct the appropriate three-part inquiry and determine whether a departure is appropriate, ensuring to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law ( see People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d at 860 ; People v Howland , 211 AD3d at 1191 ). [FN3] Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Ceresia and Mackey, JJ., concur.

2021We agree with defendant and the court that the letter from defendant's counselor and the risk assessment instrument evaluations scoring him to be the lowest possible risk of reoffending constituted mitigating circumstances that, as a matter of law, were of a kind or degree that were not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines ( see People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]).

2019As the evidence control supervisor's testimony is potentially relevant to petitioner's claim that the procedures set forth in Directive No. 4910A were not followed, the appropriate remedy under these circumstances is to remit the matter for a new hearing ( see Matter of Reyes v Annucci , 150 AD3d 1373, 1375 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 918 [2017]; Matter of Williams v Annucci , 137 AD3d 1355, 1356 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 908 [2016]).

2017Inasmuch as the Hearing Officer provided good faith reasons for denying the maintenance staff employee witness, petitioner’s regulatory right to call witnesses was violated and the proper remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing on this charge (see Matter of Williams v Annucci, 137 AD3d at 1356 ; Matter of Santiago v Fischer, 76 AD3d at 1127). * With regard to the remaining charge of committing an unhygienic act, as charged in the third misbehavior report, the report and related documentation provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Starling v Ne

2018Particularly in conjunction with the Hearing Officer's further willingness to allow Blaise to offer an inaccurate and prejudicial definition of affirmative consent and the term initiate, we "see no justification for remitting the matter for a new hearing and, thus, affording [SUNY] a second opportunity to establish a competent case against petitioner" ( Matter of DiCaprio v Trzaskos , 203 AD2d 759 , 761 n [1994]; see Matter of Girard v City of Glens Falls , 173 AD2d 113, 117-118 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 757 [1992]).

1994Under the circumstances present here, we see no justification for remitting the matter for a new hearing and, thus, affording respondent a second opportunity to establish a competent case against petitioner (see, Matter of Hartje v Coughlin, 70 NY2d 866 ; Matter of Girard v City of Glens Falls, 173 AD2d 113,118 , lv denied 79 NY2d 757 ).

2018Here, as in Katherine D. , we need not remit the matter for a new hearing on extraordinary circumstances "because the record is adequate to enable us to apply the extraordinary circumstances test" (32 AD3d at 1351; see Matter of Vincent A.B. v Karen T. , 30 AD3d 1100 , 1101 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]; cf. Matter of Howard v McLoughlin , 64 AD3d 1147, 1148 [4th Dept 2009]).

2008Nevertheless, we need not remit the matter for a new hearing because the record is adequate to enable us to determine that there are extraordinary circumstances herein (see Katherine D., 32 AD3d at 1351 ; Vincent A.B., 30 AD3d at 1101 ).

2018Here, as in Katherine D. , we need not remit the matter for a new hearing on extraordinary circumstances "because the record is adequate to enable us to apply the extraordinary circumstances test" (32 AD3d at 1351; see Matter of Vincent A.B. v Karen T. , 30 AD3d 1100 , 1101 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]; cf. Matter of Howard v McLoughlin , 64 AD3d 1147, 1148 [4th Dept 2009]).

2008Nevertheless, we need not remit the matter for a new hearing because the record is adequate to enable us to determine that there are extraordinary circumstances herein (see Katherine D., 32 AD3d at 1351 ; Vincent A.B., 30 AD3d at 1101 ).

2008Indeed, the record establishes that the mother is unfit to care for her child, who was born in March 2005 and has been in the custody of the nonparent since she was approximately eight months old (see generally Bennett, 40 NY2d at 544 ).

1983The Court of Appeals reiterated the established doctrine that: “The parent has a ‘right’ to rear its child, and the child has a ‘right’ to be reared by its parent.” (Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, supra, at p 546.) However, the court (p 546) proceeded to state that “there are exceptions created by extraordinary circumstances, illustratively, surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, and unfortunate or involuntary disruption of custody over an extended period of time.” Thus, while the State may not ordinarily deprive a biological parent of the custody of his or her child except in a

2005Under the circumstances presented here, where petitioner does not dispute that the evidence in the record was sufficient to sustain the determination, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing in which petitioner should be provided with the reason for the witness’s refusal to testify (see Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 148-149 [1990]; Matter of Payne v Coughlin, 160 AD2d 1108, 1109-1110 [1990]; Matter of Shipman v Coughlin, 98 AD2d 823, 824 [1983]; cf. Matter of Hartje v Coughlin, 70 NY2d 866, 868 [1987]).

1990In these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see, Matter of Shipman v Coughlin, 98 AD2d 823 ).

2005Under the circumstances presented here, where petitioner does not dispute that the evidence in the record was sufficient to sustain the determination, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing in which petitioner should be provided with the reason for the witness’s refusal to testify (see Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 148-149 [1990]; Matter of Payne v Coughlin, 160 AD2d 1108, 1109-1110 [1990]; Matter of Shipman v Coughlin, 98 AD2d 823, 824 [1983]; cf. Matter of Hartje v Coughlin, 70 NY2d 866, 868 [1987]).

1993The procedural error is correctable and the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing (see, Matter of Johnson v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1051 ; Matter of Payne v Coughlin, 160 AD2d 1108 ).

2005Under the circumstances presented here, where petitioner does not dispute that the evidence in the record was sufficient to sustain the determination, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for a new hearing in which petitioner should be provided with the reason for the witness’s refusal to testify (see Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 148-149 [1990]; Matter of Payne v Coughlin, 160 AD2d 1108, 1109-1110 [1990]; Matter of Shipman v Coughlin, 98 AD2d 823, 824 [1983]; cf. Matter of Hartje v Coughlin, 70 NY2d 866, 868 [1987]).

1994Under the circumstances present here, we see no justification for remitting the matter for a new hearing and, thus, affording respondent a second opportunity to establish a competent case against petitioner (see, Matter of Hartje v Coughlin, 70 NY2d 866 ; Matter of Girard v City of Glens Falls, 173 AD2d 113,118 , lv denied 79 NY2d 757 ).

2025As the record is insufficient for us to determine whether the proof established a family offense, we must vacate the order and remit the matter for a new hearing ( see Matter of Anthony T. v Melissa U. , 211 AD3d 1406, 1408 [3d Dept 2022]).