meaningful defense in New York

2017While the misbehavior report appears to contain some inaccuracies in this regard, the report as a whole provided adequate notice of the charges, as it set forth the date and time of the incidents, the specific rule violations and enough details of the misconduct to allow petitioner to prepare a meaningful defense (see Matter of Chandler v Annucci, 135 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2016]; Matter of Toro v Fischer, 104 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]; Matter of Ponder v Fischer, 54 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2008]).

2014Under these circumstances, “the misbehavior report was sufficiently specific to apprise petitioner of the charge [ ] and allow him to prepare a meaningful defense” (Matter of Toro v Fischer, 104 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]; see Matter of Clark v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2013]).

2026Such "practice falls short of a meaningful inquiry into the question of discrimination" (<i>People v Smocum</i>, 99 NY2d at 423 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), particularly because the court's consideration of pretext cannot be discerned from the record <span>[*3]</span>(<i>compare People v Morgan</i>, 230 AD3d 864 , 872 [3d Dept 2024], <i>affd </i>___ NY3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 05740 [Oct. 16, 2025];<i> People v Murray</i>, 155 AD3d 1106, 1110 [3d Dept 2017], <i>lv denied </i> 31 NY3d 1015 [2018]).</p> <p>While we are mindful of defense counsel's failure to preserve this issu

2025What is clear from the record before this Court is the inquiry deployed here falls short of the meaningful inquiry Batson requires ( see Smocum , 99 NY2d at 423).

2024Eisenberg v Wachovia Bank, N.A. , 301 F3d 220, 224 [4th Cir 2002]; Attisha Enters. v Capital One, N.A. , 2021 WL 698200 , *2, 2021 US Dist LEXIS 33321 , *4-5 [SD Cal Feb. 22, 2021, No. 3:20-cv-01366-BEN-RBB]).

2024Eisenberg v Wachovia Bank, N.A. , 301 F3d 220, 224 [4th Cir 2002]; Attisha Enters. v Capital One, N.A. , 2021 WL 698200 , *2, 2021 US Dist LEXIS 33321 , *4-5 [SD Cal Feb. 22, 2021, No. 3:20-cv-01366-BEN-RBB]).

2019The misbehavior report, which set forth the date, time and location of the incident, together with a description of petitioner's misconduct and the rule violations at issue, "was sufficiently specific to both provide petitioner with notice of the charges against him and enable him to discern his role in the incident, thereby affording him an opportunity to prepare a meaningful defense" ( Matter of Robinson v Lee , 155 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2017]; see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c]; Matter of Bachiller v Annucci , 166 AD3d 1186 , 1187 [2018]).

2018Finally, contrary to petitioner's assertion, not every facility or departmental policy need be reduced to a disciplinary rule, and we find that "[t]he misbehavior report . . . was sufficiently specific to both provide petitioner with notice of the charges against him and enable him to discern his role in the incident, thereby affording him an opportunity to prepare a meaningful defense" ( Matter of Robinson v Lee , 155 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2017]; see Matter of Barnes v Lee , 153 AD3d at 1543 ; Matter of Dallas v Lee , 153 AD3d at 1533 ).

2014Under these circumstances, “the misbehavior report was sufficiently specific to apprise petitioner of the charge [ ] and allow him to prepare a meaningful defense” (Matter of Toro v Fischer, 104 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]; see Matter of Clark v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2013]).

2014Under these circumstances, “the misbehavior report was sufficiently specific to apprise petitioner of the charge [ ] and allow him to prepare a meaningful defense” (Matter of Toro v Fischer, 104 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]; see Matter of Clark v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2013]).

2014Petitioner claimed that he fabricated the story and the visitor denied having smuggled anything into the facility, but that testimony presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Gren v Annucci, 119 AD3d 1307, 1308 [2014]).

2014Petitioner claimed that he fabricated the story and the visitor denied having smuggled anything into the facility, but that testimony presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Gren v Annucci, 119 AD3d 1307, 1308 [2014]).

2023Although the testimony of the report's author contained additional facts not included in the misbehavior report, "that is [to be] expected" as "[t]he misbehavior report is a summary that must contain the basic information, which can be expanded upon and supplemented by testimony" ( Matter of Shearer v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1277, 1278 [3d Dept 2017]).

2022We are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that the misbehavior report did not sufficiently apprise him of or allow him to prepare a meaningful defense to the weapon charge against him as the report specifically alleged that the other incarcerated individual had injuries consistent with a stabbing type weapon ( see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [1]; Matter of Grant v Capra , 200 AD3d 1443, 1443 [2021]; Matter of Shearer v Annucci, 155 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2017]; Matter of Hernandez v Prack , 108 AD3d 965, 966 [2013]).

2018Applying SCPA 1750-b's best interests standard, Supreme Court granted the order over the objection of Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) that a meaningful inquiry into M.G.'s end-of-life wishes should have been conducted because M.G. had some prior capacity to make health care decisions (compare SCPA 1750-b with Public Health Law article 29-cc; see also Matter of Chantel Nicole R. ( Pamela R .) 34 AD3d 99 [1st Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 840 [2007]).

2018Applying SCPA 1750-b's best interests standard, Supreme Court granted the order over the objection of Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) that a meaningful inquiry into M.G.'s end-of-life wishes should have been conducted because M.G. had some prior capacity to make health care decisions (compare SCPA 1750-b with Public Health Law article 29-cc; see also Matter of Chantel Nicole R. ( Pamela R .) 34 AD3d 99 [1st Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 840 [2007]).

2018Applying SCPA 1750-b's best interests standard, Supreme Court granted the order over the objection of Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) that a meaningful inquiry into M.G.'s end-of-life wishes should have been conducted because M.G. had some prior capacity to make health care decisions (compare SCPA 1750-b with Public Health Law article 29-cc; see also Matter of Chantel Nicole R. ( Pamela R .) 34 AD3d 99 [1st Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 840 [2007]).

2018Applying SCPA 1750-b's best interests standard, Supreme Court granted the order over the objection of Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) that a meaningful inquiry into M.G.'s end-of-life wishes should have been conducted because M.G. had some prior capacity to make health care decisions (compare SCPA 1750-b with Public Health Law article 29-cc; see also Matter of Chantel Nicole R. ( Pamela R .) 34 AD3d 99 [1st Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 840 [2007]).

2017The Court of Appeals recently held in Matter of Cortorreal v Annucci ( 28 NY3d 54, 60 [2016]) that where “a refusing inmate witness claims that he or she was coerced into refusing to testify at the hearing . . . , the hearing officer has an obligation to undertake a meaningful inquiry into the allegation.” Here, as in Matter of Cortorreal v Annucci (supra), the Hearing Officer did not make any inquiry of the inmate regarding his fear of retaliation, which was clearly a form of coercion.

2017The Court of Appeals recently held in Matter of Cortorreal v Annucci ( 28 NY3d 54, 60 [2016]) that where “a refusing inmate witness claims that he or she was coerced into refusing to testify at the hearing . . . , the hearing officer has an obligation to undertake a meaningful inquiry into the allegation.” Here, as in Matter of Cortorreal v Annucci (supra), the Hearing Officer did not make any inquiry of the inmate regarding his fear of retaliation, which was clearly a form of coercion.

2013Accordingly, we find the misbehavior report was sufficiently specific to apprise petitioner of the charges and allow him to prepare a meaningful defense (see Matter of Brisman v Fischer, 92 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 852 [2012]; Matter of Gittens v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 87 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2011]).

2013Accordingly, we find the misbehavior report was sufficiently specific to apprise petitioner of the charges and allow him to prepare a meaningful defense (see Matter of Brisman v Fischer, 92 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 852 [2012]; Matter of Gittens v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 87 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2011]).

2013Accordingly, we find the misbehavior report was sufficiently specific to apprise petitioner of the charges and allow him to prepare a meaningful defense (see Matter of Brisman v Fischer, 92 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 852 [2012]; Matter of Gittens v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 87 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2011]).

2013Accordingly, we find the misbehavior report was sufficiently specific to apprise petitioner of the charges and allow him to prepare a meaningful defense (see Matter of Brisman v Fischer, 92 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 852 [2012]; Matter of Gittens v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 87 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2011]).

2013Further, the Hearing Officer did not err in denying petitioner’s request for a witness that could not provide relevant or material proof (see Matter of Colon v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1176 , 1177 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 857 [2013]; Matter of Amaker v Bezio, 98 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2012]).

2013Further, the Hearing Officer did not err in denying petitioner’s request for a witness that could not provide relevant or material proof (see Matter of Colon v Fischer, 98 AD3d 1176 , 1177 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 857 [2013]; Matter of Amaker v Bezio, 98 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2012]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report provided adequate notice of the charges to allow him to prepare a meaningful defense (see Matter of Toro v Fischer, 104 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]; Matter of Booker v Fischer, 102 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2013]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report provided adequate notice of the charges to allow him to prepare a meaningful defense (see Matter of Toro v Fischer, 104 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]; Matter of Booker v Fischer, 102 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2013]).

2011Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the misbehavior report provided sufficient notice of the charge as it set forth the date, time and location of the incident as well as the rule violation and enough details of the misconduct to afford petitioner an opportunity to prepare a meaningful defense (see 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c]; Matter of Vines v Goord, 19 AD3d 951, 952-953 [2005]; Matter of Quintana v Selsky, 268 AD2d 624, 625 [2000]).

2008As for petitioner’s assertion that the misbehavior report was deficient, while each of the two incident dates listed therein was apparently incorrect by one day, the report, as a whole, was sufficiently detailed such that petitioner had notice of the charges against him and was able to prepare a meaningful defense (see Matter of Vines v Goord, 19 AD3d 951, 953 [2005]; Matter of Carini v Selsky, 19 AD3d 718, 719 [2005]).

1982Co., 434 US 159, 175-176, n 24 ).

1980Co., 434 US 159, 175-176, n 24 ).

2017Despite the defendant’s lack of cooperation, however, counsel was willing and able to conduct a meaningful defense (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

1993Despite the defendant’s lack of cooperation, however, counsel was willing and able to conduct a meaningful defense (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 ).

2024The trial court may do so only after making individualized findings on the record, focused on the three fundamental considerations of the presumption of innocence, securing a meaningful defense, and maintaining dignified proceedings ( id. at 630-632 ; see People v Clyde , 18 NY3d 145, 152 [2011], cert denied 566 US 944 [2012]).

2024The trial court may do so only after making individualized findings on the record, focused on the three fundamental considerations of the presumption of innocence, securing a meaningful defense, and maintaining dignified proceedings ( id. at 630-632; see People v Clyde , 18 NY3d 145, 152 [2011], cert denied 566 US 944 [2012]).

2024This is a critical error because "[a] trial court that resolves a Batson challenge without proceeding to [the] third step 'falls short of [providing] a meaningful inquiry into the question of discrimination' " ( People v Acevedo , 141 AD3d at 850 [McCarthy, J., concurring], quoting People v Smocum , 99 NY2d at 423 [the third step of the analysis " requires the trial court to make an ultimate determination on the issue of discriminatory intent" (emphasis added)]; see People v Hecker , 15 NY3d at 634-635 ["the trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are pretextual" (internal quo

2016Further, "trial courts bear the judicial responsibility of ensuring that an adequate record is made and of reflecting the basis for their [Batson] rulings" (People v Payne, -9- 106644 88 NY2d at 184 ).

2004A review of those medical and psychiatric records, as well as the trial record in this case, indicates that a meaningful inquiry into the defendant’s competency can be made (see People v Hudson, supra; People v Mulholland, supra; People v Arnold, supra).

1998Retrospective competency hearings are constitutionally permissible only where a meaningful inquiry into the defendant’s competency may still be made (People v Arnold, supra, at 107; cf., Pate v Robinson, supra; People v Peterson, 40 NY2d 1014 ; People v Lowe, 109 AD2d 300 , supra).

2026Therefore, since the issue of pretext is a question of fact for the trial court to assess the prosecutor's credibility against the challenged juror's demeanor and language capabilities, which is an inquiry appellate courts are unable to address at step three, "we withhold decision and remit this case to [County] Court to enable the trial judge who presided over this matter to determine whether the race-neutral reason proffered by the People was pretextual" (<i>People v Cruz</i>, 228 AD3d at 1024-1025 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; <i>see People v Luke</i>, 236 AD3d