From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Coley v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 20, 1987
126 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

January 20, 1987


Adjudged that the petition is granted and the determination is annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the charge is dismissed, and the respondents are directed to expunge from the petitioner's institutional record all references to the Superintendent's proceeding.

Pursuant to 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a), the authorities must commence a Superintendent's proceeding within seven days of the inmate's initial confinement on the pending charges. At bar, the respondents violated this rule by failing to commence the Superintendent's hearing within seven days of the petitioner's confinement to a special housing unit pending an investigation into the alleged assault. Accordingly, the determination must be annulled, and the respondents are directed to expunge all references to the instant proceeding from the petitioner's institutional record (see, Matter of Lozada v. Scully, 108 A.D.2d 859; Matter of Grosvenor v. Dalsheim, 90 A.D.2d 485; see also, Matter of Estades v. Coughlin, 101 A.D.2d 299).

In light of this determination, we need not consider the petitioner's other contentions. Brown, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Coley v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 20, 1987
126 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Matter of Coley v. Sullivan

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROBERT D. COLEY, Petitioner, v. JAMES SULLIVAN, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 20, 1987

Citations

126 A.D.2d 641 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Matter of Wysinger v. Scully

The second extension was invalid in that it was sought and obtained after the first extension had expired,…

Matter of Johnson v. Scully

Pursuant to 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a), the appellants were required to commence the Superintendent's proceeding…