×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
NY Prisoners Entitled to Assistant to Help Prepare Their Defenses in Tier 3 Disciplinary Hearings
NY Prisoners Entitled to Assistant to Help Prepare Their Defenses in Tier 3
Disciplinary Hearings
Louis Avincola, a New York state prisoner, was infracted for fighting. At
the ensuing Tier 3 disciplinary hearing the hearing officer produced a form
with the box waiving assistance by an "employee assistant" checked. The
form wasn't signed and Avincola challenged it. He was provided no
assistance, was convicted of fighting and challenged those proceedings in
state court.
During those proceedings, the New York Court for the 3rd Department of its
Appellate Division found that 7 NYCRR 254.4 and 251-4.1 (a) (4) required
the hearing officer to provide an employee assistant to help Avincola
prepare his defense in any Tier 3 Disciplinary action unless there is
sufficient evidence that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right
thereto. Since the unsigned form did not constitute such evidence, the
disciplinary outcome was annulled and the case remanded to the Commissioner
of the Department of Correctional Services for a new hearing with
appropriate assistance for Avincola. See: Avincola v. Goord, et al., 283
A.D.2d 748, 725 N.Y.S.2d 116 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 2001).
Disciplinary Hearings
Louis Avincola, a New York state prisoner, was infracted for fighting. At
the ensuing Tier 3 disciplinary hearing the hearing officer produced a form
with the box waiving assistance by an "employee assistant" checked. The
form wasn't signed and Avincola challenged it. He was provided no
assistance, was convicted of fighting and challenged those proceedings in
state court.
During those proceedings, the New York Court for the 3rd Department of its
Appellate Division found that 7 NYCRR 254.4 and 251-4.1 (a) (4) required
the hearing officer to provide an employee assistant to help Avincola
prepare his defense in any Tier 3 Disciplinary action unless there is
sufficient evidence that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right
thereto. Since the unsigned form did not constitute such evidence, the
disciplinary outcome was annulled and the case remanded to the Commissioner
of the Department of Correctional Services for a new hearing with
appropriate assistance for Avincola. See: Avincola v. Goord, et al., 283
A.D.2d 748, 725 N.Y.S.2d 116 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 2001).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Avincola v. Goord
| Year | 2001 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 283 A.D.2d 748, 725 N.Y.S.2d 116 |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
2. Avincola v. Goord, 88054, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, 283 A.D.2d 748; 725 N.Y.S.2d 116; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. , May 10, 2001, Decided, May 10, 2001, Entered
OVERVIEW: Because prison inmate was not provided with an employee assistant at his disciplinary hearing for fighting, and did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of same, prisoner's right were violated.
OVERVIEW: Because prison inmate was not provided with an employee assistant at his disciplinary hearing for fighting, and did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of same, prisoner's right were violated.