Orama v. Reid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orama v. Reid

123 A.D.2d 321, 506 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60096

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

DecidedSeptember 8, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 321 (Orama v. Reid) 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

Orama v. Reid, 123 A.D.2d 321, 506 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination made after a Superintendent’s proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated October 25, 1985, which dismissed the petition on the merits.

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties dated May 19, 1986, the judgment is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the petition is granted to the extent that (1) the determination made pursuant to the hearing completed on March 15, 1985, is disaffirmed on the authority of People ex rel. Roides v Smith (67 NY2d 899), (2) said determination is vacated and set aside, (3) the charges upon which the Superintendent’s proceeding was based are dismissed, with prejudice, (4) all entries concerning such charges, the Superintendent’s proceeding and the determination thereof, shall be expunged [322]*322from the petitioner’s records, including but not limited to institutional, departmental and parole records, and (5) the petitioner is restored in all respects to the status he enjoyed prior to the commencement of the Superintendent’s proceeding. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, 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 a determination made after a Superintendent’s proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated October 25, 1985, which dismissed the petition on the merits.

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties dated May 19, 1986, the judgment is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the petition is granted to the extent that (1) the determination made pursuant to the hearing completed on March 15, 1985, is disaffirmed on the authority of People ex rel. Roides v Smith (67 NY2d 899), (2) said determination is vacated and set aside, (3) the charges upon which the Superintendent’s proceeding was based are dismissed, with prejudice, (4) all entries concerning such charges, the Superintendent’s proceeding and the determination thereof, shall be expunged [322]*322from the petitioner’s records, including but not limited to institutional, departmental and parole records, and (5) the petitioner is restored in all respects to the status he enjoyed prior to the commencement of the Superintendent’s proceeding. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 321, 506 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orama-v-reid-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack