Edmonds v. Coombe

239 A.D.2d 798, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5545
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 22, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 798 (Edmonds v. Coombe) 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
Edmonds v. Coombe, 239 A.D.2d 798, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered February 21,1996 in Albany County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, brought this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge an administrative determination finding him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules, as alleged in four January 25, 1995 misbehavior reports. Finding that the administrative hearing was not conducted in a timely fashion because respondent’s designee did not authorize an extension pursuant to 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 until one day following the expiration of the 14-day period for completion of the hearing, Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the administrative determination and ordered expungement of all records relating to the charges against petitioner. Respondent appeals, and we reverse.

As we have held on several prior occasions, "in the absence of any substantive prejudice resulting from the minimum delay there is no reason to expunge” (Matter of Lugo v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 920, 921; see, Matter of Reynoso v Coombe, 229 AD2d 732, lv denied 89 NY2d 801; Matter of Joyce v Coughlin, 219 AD2d 777, 778). Not only has there been no showing of prejudice, but the record establishes that the delay was occasioned by the Hearing Officer’s effort to secure the testimony of a witness requested by petitioner (see, Matter of Joyce v Coughlin, supra, at 778).

[799]*799Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, determination confirmed and petition dismissed.

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

Related

Winfield v. Carpenter
51 A.D.3d 1167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Torres v. Goord
264 A.D.2d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Konigsberg v. Selsky
255 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D.2d 798, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmonds-v-coombe-nyappdiv-1997.