Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Balkum v. Annucci
In light of this, and considering the significant passage of time since the incident and the fact that petitioner has already served the penalty, we are of the view that the equitable remedy is annulment and expungement of the disciplinary determination (see Matter of Maier v Coughlin, 193 AD2d 1015, 1016 [1993]; Matter of Williams v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 771, 773 [1988]; Matter of Allah v LeFevre, 132 AD2d 293, 295 [1987]; Matter of Cunningham v LeFevre, 130 AD2d 809, 810 [1987]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Balkum v. Annucci
In light of this, and considering the significant passage of time since the incident and the fact that petitioner has already served the penalty, we are of the view that the equitable remedy is annulment and expungement of the disciplinary determination (see Matter of Maier v Coughlin, 193 AD2d 1015, 1016 [1993]; Matter of Williams v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 771, 773 [1988]; Matter of Allah v LeFevre, 132 AD2d 293, 295 [1987]; Matter of Cunningham v LeFevre, 130 AD2d 809, 810 [1987]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Nance v. Annucci
In view of this, and considering that over a year and a half has elapsed since the incident giving rise to the misbehavior report during which time many of the potential witnesses may have been relocated or released from prison, equity dictates that the disciplinary determination at issue be annulled and that all references thereto be expunged from petitioner’s institutional record (see Matter of Williams v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 771, 773 [1988]; Matter of Allah v LeFevre, 132 AD2d 293, 295 [1987]; Matter of Cunningham v LeFevre, 130 AD2d 809, 810 [1987]; see also Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 A…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alvarez v. Goord
Appellate courts have, in similar situations, either ordered ex-pungement as a matter of law (see Matter of Johnson v Coombe, 244 AD2d 664, 665 [1997]; Matter of Contras v Coughlin, 199 AD2d 601, 602-603 [1993]), or remitted for a new hearing as a matter of law (see Matter of Coleman v Coombe, 65 NY2d 777 , 780 [1985]; Matter of Tafari v McGinnis, 306 AD2d 662, 663 [2003]); this Court has also balanced the equities to determine which of these options is most appropriate under the particular circumstances {see Matter of Maier v Coughlin, 193 AD2d 1015, 1016 [1993] [expungement]; Matter of Willi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Codrington v. Mann
The foregoing circumstances, even without the additional factor that the preferred testimony would not have been cumulative, renders unavailing respondents’ waiver argument (see, Matter of Williams v Coughlin, supra, at 773; compare, Matter of Lebron v Coughlin, 169 AD2d 859 ; Matter of Crowley v O’Keefe, 148 AD2d 816, 817 , appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 780 , lv denied 74 NY2d 613 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Crowley v. O'Keefe
Unlike the petitioner in Matter of Williams v Coughlin (supra, at 773), petitioner herein acquiesced in the refusal of the three witnesses to testify.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Harold E. Peterson
v.
Herbert B. Ray, as Judge of the Family Court of Broome County
v.
Herbert B. Ray, as Judge of the Family Court of Broome County
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 8, 1988.
Published
— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Fischer, J.), entered January 13, 1988 in Broome County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to prohibit respondent Broome County Family Court Judge from holding a hearing on counsel fees.
Appeal dismissed, as moot, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur. [See, 138 Mise 2d 31.]