Byrd v. Flood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Byrd v. Flood

147 A.D.2d 640, 538 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2060

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 21, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 640 (Byrd v. Flood) 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

Byrd v. Flood, 147 A.D.2d 640, 538 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review, inter alia, certain disciplinary determinations by the respondent, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), entered June 9, 1987, as failed to expunge his disciplinary record.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances presented in the instant record, including the petitioner’s admission at the hearing before the [641]*641Supreme Court that on or about February 3, 1987, he tore up a disciplinary report and flushed it down a toilet, the Supreme Court did not err in failing to expunge the petitioner’s record with respect to that incident (see also, Matter of Sommer v Jones, 96 AD2d 624). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review, inter alia, certain disciplinary determinations by the respondent, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), entered June 9, 1987, as failed to expunge his disciplinary record.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances presented in the instant record, including the petitioner’s admission at the hearing before the [641]*641Supreme Court that on or about February 3, 1987, he tore up a disciplinary report and flushed it down a toilet, the Supreme Court did not err in failing to expunge the petitioner’s record with respect to that incident (see also, Matter of Sommer v Jones, 96 AD2d 624). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 640, 538 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrd-v-flood-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack