testimony before hearing in New York

1980The decision of respondent commissioner was made without the benefit of a verbatim transcript of the testimony before the hearing officer and therefore was not based upon a full record and must be reversed (18 NYCRR 358.18 [a]; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ).

1979Where, as here, the commissioner of a State agency renders his decision without the benefit of verbatim transcript of the testimony before the hearing officer, his reliance upon the hearing officer’s view of the evidence is improper (Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; Matter of Mclver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Matter of Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ).

1979Where, as here, the commissioner of a State agency renders his decision without the benefit of verbatim transcript of the testimony before the hearing officer, his reliance upon the hearing officer’s view of the evidence is improper (Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; Matter of Mclver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Matter of Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ).

1977The decision of respondent commissioner was made without the benefit of a verbatim transcript of the testimony before the hearing officer and must be reversed (18 NYCRR 358.18 [a]; see Matter of Mclver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Matter of Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720).

1979Where, as here, the commissioner of a State agency renders his decision without the benefit of verbatim transcript of the testimony before the hearing officer, his reliance upon the hearing officer’s view of the evidence is improper (Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; Matter of Mclver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Matter of Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ).

1977The decision of respondent commissioner was made without the benefit of a verbatim transcript of the testimony before the hearing officer and must be reversed (18 NYCRR 358.18 [a]; see Matter of Mclver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Matter of Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720).

2021Accordingly, the Supreme Court's determination that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement was warranted by the facts ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]; Matter of State of New York v Carl S ., 125 AD3d at 672 ; Matter of State of New York v S. Mc. , 103 AD3d 652, 653 ).

2021Accordingly, the Supreme Court's determination that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement was warranted by the facts ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]; Matter of State of New York v Carl S ., 125 AD3d at 672 ; Matter of State of New York v S. Mc. , 103 AD3d 652, 653 ).

2017(See People v Guilford, 21 NY3d 205 [2013]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35 [1977].) Moreover, here, as in Petronio , during the period of the defendant’s detention, the defendant was provided with food, given the opportunity to use the bathroom, and left alone in a cell overnight where he had the “opportunit[y] to rest in solitude.” (Petronio, 34 AD3d at 604 .) And here, as in Petronio , the Detectives during the period the defendant was detained took other investigative steps, looking for possible witnesses and interviewing at least one of them on August 20th.

2017The defendant then proceeded over the ensuing hours to spin a series of differing tales describing the manner of the killing and disposal of the body.” Noting that, “[djuring that time, the police obtained a search warrant to search the defendant’s home and investigated the defendant’s varied assertions,” and that “[t]he defendant was provided with food and the opportunity to use toilet facilities, as well as opportunities to rest in solitude,” the Court held that “the passage of a total of 25 hours from the time the police administered Miranda warnings to the time of the defendant’s final sta

2017(See People v Guilford, 21 NY3d 205 [2013]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35 [1977].) Moreover, here, as in Petronio , during the period of the defendant’s detention, the defendant was provided with food, given the opportunity to use the bathroom, and left alone in a cell overnight where he had the “opportunit[y] to rest in solitude.” (Petronio, 34 AD3d at 604 .) And here, as in Petronio , the Detectives during the period the defendant was detained took other investigative steps, looking for possible witnesses and interviewing at least one of them on August 20th.

2017(See People v Guilford, 21 NY3d 205 [2013]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35 [1977].) Moreover, here, as in Petronio , during the period of the defendant’s detention, the defendant was provided with food, given the opportunity to use the bathroom, and left alone in a cell overnight where he had the “opportunit[y] to rest in solitude.” (Petronio, 34 AD3d at 604 .) And here, as in Petronio , the Detectives during the period the defendant was detained took other investigative steps, looking for possible witnesses and interviewing at least one of them on August 20th.

1988In Sullivan, the testimony before the hearing court (United States v Sullivan, 544 F Supp 701 ) established: (1) that the Delta Airlines airfreight supervisor had made an independent determination to open the package, (2) that Lieutenant Seabrease, who was specifically trained in the field, articulated reasons for his belief that the package contained an explosive, (3) that the local bomb squad was not available and there was no suitable bomb storage or transportation equipment, and (4) that Lieutenant Seabrease acted with the express permission and assistance of the Delta Airlines airfreight

1986Administrative tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence (Matter of Sowa v Looney, 23 NY2d 329 ; 300 Gramatan Ave.

1980The decision of respondent commissioner was made without the benefit of a verbatim transcript of the testimony before the hearing officer and therefore was not based upon a full record and must be reversed (18 NYCRR 358.18 [a]; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ).

1980The decision of respondent commissioner was made without the benefit of a verbatim transcript of the testimony before the hearing officer and therefore was not based upon a full record and must be reversed (18 NYCRR 358.18 [a]; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ).

1979Furthermore, even if the commissioner could properly rely upon the hearing officer’s official report pursuant to 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a) (see Matter of Halley v Lavine, supra, p 946), the so-called official report in this proceeding is wholly inadequate to provide him with the means to make an "informed decision” (Matter of Taub v Pirnie, 3 NY2d 188,194 ).

1969There must be an awareness of all the consequences flowing from the testimony before a waiver may be intelligently made (cf. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 469 ).