Dawes v. Coughlin

193 A.D.2d 1047, 598 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 27, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1047 (Dawes v. Coughlin) 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
Dawes v. Coughlin, 193 A.D.2d 1047, 598 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered March 23, 1992 in Albany County, which, upon reconsideration, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was initially found guilty by respondent after a Superintendent’s hearing of violating three disciplinary rules. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. After respondent received a letter from Prisoners’ Legal Services on behalf of petitioner as a "supplemental appeal”, respondent reversed his earlier determination on procedural grounds and a new hearing was ordered. Petitioner brought the instant proceeding to expunge his record, contending that it was improper for respondent to order a new hearing. Upon reconsideration Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that respondent had no authority to sua sponte reconsider its final administrative determination. Respondent appeals.

Respondent, in administratively reversing the determination, effectively found that petitioner was denied his right to call witnesses and to be present at the hearing. Given these facts, we agree with Supreme Court’s finding that expungement was the proper remedy in this case (see, Matter of [1048]*1048Preston v Coughlin, 164 AD2d 101; Matter of Rosario v Seksky, 162 AD2d 939).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Dawes v. Coughlin
634 N.E.2d 938 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
Brodie v. Selsky
203 A.D.2d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Weiss v. Coughlin
199 A.D.2d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 A.D.2d 1047, 598 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawes-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1993.