Parkinson v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 191 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Parkinson v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 191 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Costantino v. Goord (nyappdiv, 2007-03-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Costantino v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
However, the determination dated March 11, 2005 must be annulled, as the respondents, in effect, correctly concede, since the minutes of the hearing do not exist (see Matter of Parkinson v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 191 AD2d 635, 636 [1993]; Matter of Gittens v Sullivan, 151 AD2d 481 [1989]; Matter of Jacob v Winch, 121 AD2d 446, 446-447 [1986]; Matter of Dupree v Scully, 100 AD2d 966, 967 [1984]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Roland O. Parkinson, Jr.
v.
New York State Department of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 22, 1993.
191 A.D.2d 635
1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2620
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents dated June 3, 1989, finding that the petitioner had violated[*636] institutional rules and imposing a penalty, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), dated January 3, 1990, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the findings that the petitioner violated the institutional rules in question and the penalty imposed thereon are vacated, without prejudice to a de novo hearing and a new determination if the respondents be so advised.

Since the minutes of the hearing do not exist, the determination should be annulled (see, Matter of Gittens v Sullivan, 151 AD2d 481). The annulment is without prejudice to a de novo hearing and a new determination if the respondents be so advised.

We find no merit to the respondents’ contention that the appeal is moot. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Lawrence and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.