Hayes v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Fischer

95 A.D.3d 1587, 944 N.Y.S.2d 800

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

DecidedMay 24, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1587 (Hayes v. Fischer) 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

Hayes v. Fischer, 95 A.D.3d 1587, 944 N.Y.S.2d 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[1588]*1588Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.), entered June 3, 2011 in Chemung County, which partially 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 commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a prison disciplinary determination. Finding that a significant portion of the transcript was missing and that meaningful review was precluded, Supreme Court partially granted the petition by annulling the determination and remitting for a new hearing. Petitioner appeals.

Petitioner’s sole contention is that Supreme Court should have ordered expungement instead of a new hearing. We find this claim to be unpersuasive. As this Court has noted, ‘ ‘ [ejxpungement will be ordered only where there has been a showing that ‘(1) the challenged disciplinary determination is not supported by substantial evidence . . . ; (2) there has been a violation of one of the inmate’s fundamental due process rights, as enunciated in Wolff v McDonnell (418 US 539 . . .); or (3) other equitable considerations dictate expungement of the record rather than remittal for a new hearing’ ” (Matter of Monko v Selsky, 246 AD2d 699, 700 [1998], quoting Matter of Hillard v Coughlin, 187 AD2d 136, 140 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 651 [1993] [citations omitted]). None of the foregoing concerns are implicated by the missing testimony in the case at hand. Therefore, Supreme Court properly ordered a new hearing (see Matter of La Van v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 47 AD3d 1153 [2008]; Matter of Auricchio v Goord, 273 AD2d 571, 572 [2000]; Matter of Monko v Selsky, 246 AD2d at 700).

Peters, P.J., Mercure, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

[1588]*1588Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.), entered June 3, 2011 in Chemung County, which partially 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 commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a prison disciplinary determination. Finding that a significant portion of the transcript was missing and that meaningful review was precluded, Supreme Court partially granted the petition by annulling the determination and remitting for a new hearing. Petitioner appeals.

Petitioner’s sole contention is that Supreme Court should have ordered expungement instead of a new hearing. We find this claim to be unpersuasive. As this Court has noted, ‘ ‘ [ejxpungement will be ordered only where there has been a showing that ‘(1) the challenged disciplinary determination is not supported by substantial evidence . . . ; (2) there has been a violation of one of the inmate’s fundamental due process rights, as enunciated in Wolff v McDonnell (418 US 539 . . .); or (3) other equitable considerations dictate expungement of the record rather than remittal for a new hearing’ ” (Matter of Monko v Selsky, 246 AD2d 699, 700 [1998], quoting Matter of Hillard v Coughlin, 187 AD2d 136, 140 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 651 [1993] [citations omitted]). None of the foregoing concerns are implicated by the missing testimony in the case at hand. Therefore, Supreme Court properly ordered a new hearing (see Matter of La Van v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 47 AD3d 1153 [2008]; Matter of Auricchio v Goord, 273 AD2d 571, 572 [2000]; Matter of Monko v Selsky, 246 AD2d at 700).

Peters, P.J., Mercure, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 1587, 944 N.Y.S.2d 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack