Medina v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medina v. Annucci

144 A.D.3d 1694, 40 N.Y.S.3d 812

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2016

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A.D.3d 1694 (Medina v. Annucci) 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

Medina v. Annucci, 144 A.D.3d 1694, 40 N.Y.S.3d 812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered July 7, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment directed respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the incident underlying this special proceeding.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to respondent’s contention, Supreme Court properly determined upon reargument that expungement of all references to the underlying incident from petitioner’s institutional record, rather than remittal for a new hearing, was the appropriate remedy for the violation of petitioner’s fundamental right to be present at his disciplinary hearing (see Matter of Brooks v James, 105 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2013]; Matter of Rush v Goord, 2 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2003]; see also Matter of Bowen v Coombe, 239 AD2d 960, 960-961 [1997]). This is not a case in which the record is unclear with respect to whether petitioner’s right to be present was in fact violated (cf. Matter of Texeira v Fischer, 26 NY3d 230, 234-235 [2015]; Matter of Shoga v Annucci, 132 AD3d 1338, 1339 [2015]).

Present— Whalen, P.J., Smith, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered July 7, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment directed respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all references to the incident underlying this special proceeding.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to respondent’s contention, Supreme Court properly determined upon reargument that expungement of all references to the underlying incident from petitioner’s institutional record, rather than remittal for a new hearing, was the appropriate remedy for the violation of petitioner’s fundamental right to be present at his disciplinary hearing (see Matter of Brooks v James, 105 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2013]; Matter of Rush v Goord, 2 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2003]; see also Matter of Bowen v Coombe, 239 AD2d 960, 960-961 [1997]). This is not a case in which the record is unclear with respect to whether petitioner’s right to be present was in fact violated (cf. Matter of Texeira v Fischer, 26 NY3d 230, 234-235 [2015]; Matter of Shoga v Annucci, 132 AD3d 1338, 1339 [2015]).

Present— Whalen, P.J., Smith, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.3d 1694, 40 N.Y.S.3d 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack