recommendations hearing in New York

1986As to petitioner’s claim concerning the role of respondent in filing the charges, testifying at the hearing and rendering the final determination, we are of the view that as a matter of propriety and because of his personal involvement, respondent should have disqualified himself from reviewing the recommendations of the hearing officer and acting on any of the charges (see, Matter of Sander v Owens, 82 AD2d 968 ; see also, Matter of Edgar v Dowling, 96 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Ortiz v Lesser, 83 AD2d 663 ; Matter of Martin v Bates, 65 AD2d 818 ).

1981As a matter of propriety and because of his personal involvement, Mr. Morris, the Director of the Fulton County Infirmary, who preferred charges against petitioner and testified at the hearing, should have disqualified himself from reviewing the recommendations of the hearing officer and from acting with respect to any of the charges (Matter of Sander v Owens, 82 AD2d 968 ; Matter of Martin v Bates, 65 AD2d 818 ; see, also, Wind v Ravo, 69 AD2d 879 ).

1986As to petitioner’s claim concerning the role of respondent in filing the charges, testifying at the hearing and rendering the final determination, we are of the view that as a matter of propriety and because of his personal involvement, respondent should have disqualified himself from reviewing the recommendations of the hearing officer and acting on any of the charges (see, Matter of Sander v Owens, 82 AD2d 968 ; see also, Matter of Edgar v Dowling, 96 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Ortiz v Lesser, 83 AD2d 663 ; Matter of Martin v Bates, 65 AD2d 818 ).

1981As a matter of propriety and because of his personal involvement, Mr. Morris, the Director of the Fulton County Infirmary, who preferred charges against petitioner and testified at the hearing, should have disqualified himself from reviewing the recommendations of the hearing officer and from acting with respect to any of the charges (Matter of Sander v Owens, 82 AD2d 968 ; Matter of Martin v Bates, 65 AD2d 818 ; see, also, Wind v Ravo, 69 AD2d 879 ).

2012Thus, where a witness is testifying during a disciplinary hearing concerning charges levied against an individual, disqualifying himself or herself from reviewing the recommendations of the hearing officer and rendering a final determination is appropriate (see Matter of Nicoletti v Meyer, 42 AD3d 722 [3d Dept 2007]; see also Matter of Lowy v Carter, 210 AD2d 408, 409 [2d Dept 1994] [a testifying witness reviewing recommendations and acting upon the charges permits that person to pass upon his or her “own credibility as a witness”]; Matter of Hicks v Fortier, 117 AD2d 930 [3d Dept 1986]).

2012Thus, where a witness is testifying during a disciplinary hearing concerning charges levied against an individual, disqualifying himself or herself from reviewing the recommendations of the hearing officer and rendering a final determination is appropriate (see Matter of Nicoletti v Meyer, 42 AD3d 722 [3d Dept 2007]; see also Matter of Lowy v Carter, 210 AD2d 408, 409 [2d Dept 1994] [a testifying witness reviewing recommendations and acting upon the charges permits that person to pass upon his or her “own credibility as a witness”]; Matter of Hicks v Fortier, 117 AD2d 930 [3d Dept 1986]).

1986As to petitioner’s claim concerning the role of respondent in filing the charges, testifying at the hearing and rendering the final determination, we are of the view that as a matter of propriety and because of his personal involvement, respondent should have disqualified himself from reviewing the recommendations of the hearing officer and acting on any of the charges (see, Matter of Sander v Owens, 82 AD2d 968 ; see also, Matter of Edgar v Dowling, 96 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Ortiz v Lesser, 83 AD2d 663 ; Matter of Martin v Bates, 65 AD2d 818 ).

1986Accordingly, the petition should be granted to the extent of annulling the determination and remitting the matter to respondents for a de novo determination on the present record by an official of the Chemung County Department of Social Services who would be authorized to act during the absence or inability of respondent (see, Matter of Ortiz v Lesser, supra).

1983In view of petitioner’s numerous instances of past violations, there was a rational basis for appellant’s exercise of discretion to adopt the recommendation of the hearing referee (see Matter of Ramsey v New York City Tr.Auth., 50 AD2d 895 , affd 40 NY2d 960 ).

1983In view of petitioner’s numerous instances of past violations, there was a rational basis for appellant’s exercise of discretion to adopt the recommendation of the hearing referee (see Matter of Ramsey v New York City Tr.Auth., 50 AD2d 895 , affd 40 NY2d 960 ).

1980Special Term, held that chapter 82 was inapplicable because the hearings had commenced prior to the April 15, 1977 effective date, relying on this court’s decision in Matter of Meliti v Board of Educ. ( 64 AD2d 631 ).

1974(Cf. Kinsella v. Board of Educ., 378 F. Supp. 54 .) .