Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Shawn GREEN, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.)
Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination that he violated various inmate rules. As respondent correctly concedes, that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 107.20 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][8][iii] [false statements] ) is not supported by substantial evidence (see generally People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997). We therefore modify the determination and grant the petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated that rule. Inasmuch as it appears from the record that petitioner has already served his administrative penalty, the appropriate remedy with respect to that violation is expungement (see Matter of Vasquez v. Goord, 284 A.D.2d 903, 725 N.Y.S.2d 921; see also Matter of Redmond v. Goord, 6 A.D.3d 1207, 775 N.Y.S.2d 715). We therefore direct respondent to expunge from petitioner's institutional record all references to the violation of that rule. We conclude that the determination with respect to the remaining inmate rules is supported by substantial evidence.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law and the petition is granted in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated inmate rule 107.20 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][8][iii] ) and as modified the determination is confirmed without costs, and respondent is directed to expunge from petitioner's institutional record all references to the violation of that rule.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: July 06, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)