Brito v. Sullivan

141 A.D.2d 819, 530 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7158
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 27, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 141 A.D.2d 819 (Brito v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brito v. Sullivan, 141 A.D.2d 819, 530 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated March 22, 1986, finding the petitioner guilty of assault and fighting [820]*820emanating from his stabbing of a fellow inmate, and imposing a penalty, and to expunge the charges from his institutional record, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered September 5, 1986, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, the determination is annulled, and the respondent is directed to expunge from the petitioner’s institutional record all reference to the charges underlying the Superintendent’s proceeding in question.

Pursuant to 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a), the respondent was required to commence the Superintendent’s proceeding within seven days of the petitioner’s incarceration in the special housing unit unless an extension was authorized by the Commissioner or his designee. The respondent’s first request for an extension of time in which to commence the hearing was not granted until March 17, 1986, the tenth day of the petitioner’s confinement in the special housing unit. Under the circumstances, the determination must be annulled and all references to the Superintendent’s proceeding in the petitioner’s institutional record must be expunged (see, Matter of Coley v Sullivan, 126 AD2d 641; People ex rel. De Fulmer v Scully, 110 AD2d 671, 672, appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 925; Matter of Lozada v Scully, 108 AD2d 859).

In light of this determination, we need not consider the petitioner’s remaining contention. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anderson v. Coughlin
195 A.D.2d 1075 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Hicks v. Scully
159 A.D.2d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Johnson v. Scully
156 A.D.2d 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Maldonado v. Coughlin
150 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Wysinger v. Scully
150 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 A.D.2d 819, 530 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brito-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1988.