From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hicks v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 19, 1990
159 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 19, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (West, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, the determination is annulled, the charge is dismissed, and the respondent is directed to expunge from the petitioner's institutional record all reference to the charges underlying the Superintendent's proceeding.

The second extension granted to the respondent pursuant to 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 was invalid, as it was obtained after the first extension had expired and while the petitioner was still confined in a special housing unit (see, Matter of Wysinger v Scully, 150 A.D.2d 468; Matter of Brito v Sullivan, 141 A.D.2d 819). In any event, the hearing was not completed until after the date prescribed by the second extension (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b]). Thus, the determination is annulled and all references to the charges underlying the Superintendent's proceeding in the petitioner's institutional record are directed to be expunged (see, Matter of Coley v Sullivan, 126 A.D.2d 641; Matter of Lozada v Scully, 108 A.D.2d 859). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Hicks v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 19, 1990
159 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Hicks v. Scully

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROY HICKS, Appellant, v. CHARLES J. SCULLY, as…

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

Date published: Mar 19, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
552 N.Y.S.2d 684

Citing Cases

People ex rel. Furde v. New York City Department of Correction

( Matter of Bryant v. Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642, 647; Matter of Garcia v. LeFevre, 64 NY2d 1001.) To do otherwise…

Lugo v. Coughlin

We reject petitioner's argument that expungement is necessary because the second extension granted for the…