fair and impartial hearing in New York

2012Moreover, upon reviewing the record, we find nothing to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of McGowan v Fischer, 88 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2011]; Matter of Barnes v Bezio, 86 AD3d 884, 885 [2011]).

2012Lastly, upon reviewing the record, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of McGowan v Fischer, 88 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2011]; Matter of Al-Matin v Brown, 86 AD3d 902, 902-903 [2011]).

2013Further, we find nothing in the record to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Fragosa v Miller, 95 AD3d 1524, 1525 [2012]; Matter of Gonzalez v Fischer, 93 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 806 [2012]).

2013Further, we find nothing in the record to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Fragosa v Miller, 95 AD3d 1524, 1525 [2012]; Matter of Gonzalez v Fischer, 93 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 806 [2012]).

2017Taken as a whole, the record reveals that the hearing was conducted in a fair manner (see Matter of Filipowski v Sullivan-Tirelli, 139 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2016]).

2017Taken as a whole, the record reveals that the hearing was conducted in a fair manner (see Matter of Filipowski v Sullivan-Tirelli, 139 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2016]).

2016Nor are we persuaded that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing as there is no indication that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Mullamphy v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1177, 1177 [2013]; Matter of Boatwright v McGinnis, 24 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2005]).

2014Furthermore, we are not persuaded that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing as there is no indication that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Mullamphy v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1177, 1177-1178 [2013]; Matter of Boatwright v McGinnis, 24 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2005]).

2016Nor are we persuaded that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing as there is no indication that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Mullamphy v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1177, 1177 [2013]; Matter of Boatwright v McGinnis, 24 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2005]).

2014Furthermore, we are not persuaded that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing as there is no indication that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Mullamphy v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1177, 1177-1178 [2013]; Matter of Boatwright v McGinnis, 24 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2005]).

2012Lastly, upon reviewing the record, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of McGowan v Fischer, 88 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2011]; Matter of Al-Matin v Brown, 86 AD3d 902, 902-903 [2011]).

2012Finally, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s claim that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of McGowan v Fischer, 88 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2011]; Matter of Al-Matin v Brown, 86 AD3d 902, 902-903 [2011]).

2006Finally, the record establishes that petitioner was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and that the determination resulted from the evidence presented and not from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Jackson v Goord, 18 AD3d 973, 974 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 713 [2005]; Matter of Perkins v Goord, 290 AD2d 700, 701 [2002]).

2005A review of the hearing establishes that the outcome of the hearing flowed from the substantial evidence in the record and not from any alleged conspiracy or bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Perkins v Goord, 290 AD2d 700, 701 [2002]; Matter of Cooper v Goord, 284 AD2d 844, 845 [2001]).

2019"The record demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that the determination was not the result of any alleged bias on the part of the hearing officer" ( Matter of Phillips v Lee , 115 AD3d 957, 958 ; see Matter of Almodovar v Griffin , 159 AD3d 694 , 695; Matter of Harris v Kaplin , 102 AD3d 692, 693 ).

2019Contrary to the petitioner's contention, he was not deprived of his due process rights to a fair and impartial hearing, nor was there evidence that his guilt and penalty were predetermined. " The record demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that the determination was not the result of any alleged bias on the part of the hearing officer'" ( Matter of Almodovar v Griffin , 159 AD3d at 695, quoting Matter of Phillips v Lee , 115 AD3d 957, 958 ; see Matter of Harris v Kaplin , 102 AD3d 692, 693 ).

2010Additionally, our review of the record reveals that petitioner was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and the determination of his guilt was a result of the evidence presented, rather than any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Hayes v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1085, 1086 [2010]; Matter of Burgess v Goord, 34 AD3d 948 , 949 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 813 [2007]).

2010Finally, our review of the record demonstrates that petitioner was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and the determination flowed from the evidence presented, rather than any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Hayes v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1085 [2010]; Matter of Burgess v Goord, 34 AD3d 948 , 949 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 813 [2007]).

2019Next, we are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer violated petitioner's due process rights to a fair and impartial hearing by denying him documentary evidence, inasmuch as the record reflects that the requested documents did not exist ( see Matter of Cosme v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 168 AD3d 1327 , 1329 [2019]; Matter of Davis v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1191, 1192 [2017]).

2019Next, we are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer violated petitioner's due process rights to a fair and impartial hearing by denying him documentary evidence, inasmuch as the record reflects that the requested documents did not exist ( see Matter of Cosme v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 168 AD3d 1327 , 1329 [2019]; Matter of Davis v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1191, 1192 [2017]).

2013Petitioner’s further assertion that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing is unavailing, as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 785 [2012]; Matter of Bornstorff v Bezio, 73 AD3d 1397, 1398 [2010]).

2013Petitioner’s further assertion that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing is unavailing, as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 785 [2012]; Matter of Bornstorff v Bezio, 73 AD3d 1397, 1398 [2010]).

2013To the extent that petitioner alleges bias on the part of the Hearing Officer, we note that this claim is not supported by the record, which reflects that petitioner was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and that the determination was based upon the evidence (see Matter of Jackson v Prack, 84 AD3d 1660, 1661 [2011]; Matter of Amaker v Selsky, 43 AD3d 547, 547 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]).

2013To the extent that petitioner alleges bias on the part of the Hearing Officer, we note that this claim is not supported by the record, which reflects that petitioner was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and that the determination was based upon the evidence (see Matter of Jackson v Prack, 84 AD3d 1660, 1661 [2011]; Matter of Amaker v Selsky, 43 AD3d 547, 547 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]).

2013Further, we find nothing in the record to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Fragosa v Miller, 95 AD3d 1524, 1525 [2012]; Matter of Gonzalez v Fischer, 93 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 806 [2012]).

2013Further, we find nothing in the record to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Fragosa v Miller, 95 AD3d 1524, 1525 [2012]; Matter of Gonzalez v Fischer, 93 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 806 [2012]).

2013Petitioner’s further assertion that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing is unavailing, as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 785 [2012]; Matter of Bornstorff v Bezio, 73 AD3d 1397, 1398 [2010]).

2013Petitioner’s further assertion that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing is unavailing, as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 785 [2012]; Matter of Bornstorff v Bezio, 73 AD3d 1397, 1398 [2010]).

2013Furthermore, upon reviewing the record, we find nothing to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Henderson v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1162, 1163 [2012]; Matter of Fragosa v Miller, 95 AD3d 1524, 1525 [2012]).

2013Furthermore, upon reviewing the record, we find nothing to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Henderson v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1162, 1163 [2012]; Matter of Fragosa v Miller, 95 AD3d 1524, 1525 [2012]).

2013To the extent that petitioner alleges bias on the part of the Hearing Officer, we note that this claim is not supported by the record, which reflects that petitioner was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and that the determination was based upon the evidence (see Matter of Jackson v Prack, 84 AD3d 1660, 1661 [2011]; Matter of Amaker v Selsky, 43 AD3d 547, 547 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]).

2013To the extent that petitioner alleges bias on the part of the Hearing Officer, we note that this claim is not supported by the record, which reflects that petitioner was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and that the determination was based upon the evidence (see Matter of Jackson v Prack, 84 AD3d 1660, 1661 [2011]; Matter of Amaker v Selsky, 43 AD3d 547, 547 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]).

2012The record also reflects that the hearing was conducted within the time frames permitted by appropriate extensions (see Matter of McNeil v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1520, 1521 [2012]; Matter of Martinez v Fischer, 82 AD3d 1380, 1381 [2011]).

2012The record also reflects that the hearing was conducted within the time frames permitted by appropriate extensions (see Matter of McNeil v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1520, 1521 [2012]; Matter of Martinez v Fischer, 82 AD3d 1380, 1381 [2011]).

2012The record reflects that the Hearing Officer conducted a fair and impartial hearing and made appropriate evidentiary determinations (see Matter of Dennis v Bezio, 82 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2011]; Matter of Sepe v Goord, 1 AD3d 667, 668 [2003]).

2012The record reflects that the Hearing Officer conducted a fair and impartial hearing and made appropriate evidentiary determinations (see Matter of Dennis v Bezio, 82 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2011]; Matter of Sepe v Goord, 1 AD3d 667, 668 [2003]).

2012Moreover, upon reviewing the record, we find nothing to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of McGowan v Fischer, 88 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2011]; Matter of Barnes v Bezio, 86 AD3d 884, 885 [2011]).

2012Moreover, upon reviewing the record, we find nothing to indicate that petitioner was denied a fair and impartial hearing or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of McGowan v Fischer, 88 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2011]; Matter of Barnes v Bezio, 86 AD3d 884, 885 [2011]).

2012The record also reflects that the hearing was conducted within the time frames permitted by appropriate extensions (see Matter of McNeil v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1520, 1521 [2012]; Matter of Martinez v Fischer, 82 AD3d 1380, 1381 [2011]).

2012The record also reflects that the hearing was conducted within the time frames permitted by appropriate extensions (see Matter of McNeil v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1520, 1521 [2012]; Matter of Martinez v Fischer, 82 AD3d 1380, 1381 [2011]).

2012The record reflects that the Hearing Officer conducted a fair and impartial hearing and made appropriate evidentiary determinations (see Matter of Dennis v Bezio, 82 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2011]; Matter of Sepe v Goord, 1 AD3d 667, 668 [2003]).

2012The record reflects that the Hearing Officer conducted a fair and impartial hearing and made appropriate evidentiary determinations (see Matter of Dennis v Bezio, 82 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2011]; Matter of Sepe v Goord, 1 AD3d 667, 668 [2003]).

2020Although the mother's claim of bias is not preserved for appellate review ( see Matter of Bowe v Bowe , 124 AD3d 645, 646 ), we reach the issue in the interest of justice ( see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] , 140 AD3d 893, 894 ).

2016A party claiming court bias must preserve an objection and move for the court to recuse itself (see Matter of Bowe v Bowe, 124 AD3d 645, 646 [2015]; Matter of Kimberly Z. [Jason Z.], 88 AD3d 1181, 1184 [2011]).

1998The ALJ was charged to “conduct the hearing in such order and manner and with such methods of proof and interrogation as the judge deems best suited to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties” (12 NYCRR 461.4 [a]; see, Matter of O’Connor [Howel l—Hart nett], 165 AD2d 946, 948 ).

1993Claimant was provided with an interpreter and the record does not support his assertion that the Administrative Law Judge interfered with his right to cross-examine the employer’s witnesses (see, Matter of O’Con-nor [Howell — Hartnett], 165 AD2d 946, 948 ; Matter of Noss [Lawrence Aviation Indus. — Roberts], 133 AD2d 510, 511 , lv denied 71 NY2d 802 ).