Saez v. Fischer

We annul. We agree with petitioner’s contention, and respondent concedes, that the Hearing Officer erred in failing to ascertain why a requested inmate had refused to testify. Although the inmate assistant signed the form indicating that the requested inmate refused to testify, no explanation was given for such refusal. Moreover, the Hearing Officer made no attempt to verify the basis for the refusal, despite petitioner’s repeated requests for the inmate’s testimony (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Prack, 98 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2012]). Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, we find that, under the…