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.
Matter of Mark B. PANGBURN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph J. COSTELLO, Superintendent, Mid-state Correctional Facility, Robert Tarnow, Correctional Counselor, and Brian F. Malone, Inspector General, New York State Department of Corrections, Respondents-Respondents.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 after his request to expunge certain allegedly false or misleading information from his institutional records was denied. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the proceeding is moot insofar as it sought judgment directing that all references to petitioner's Tier II disciplinary proceeding be expunged (see, Matter of Free v. Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 996, 652 N.Y.S.2d 190) and that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the other allegedly false or misleading information (see, Matter of Patterson v. Smith, 53 N.Y.2d 98, 100, 440 N.Y.S.2d 600, 423 N.E.2d 23). Because all references to the Tier II disciplinary proceeding have been expunged from petitioner's institutional records, that part of the proceeding seeking expungement of those references is moot (see, Matter of Free v. Coombe, supra ). As respondents concede, however, petitioner exhausted the administrative remedies available to him to dispute the accuracy of the other allegedly false or misleading information (see, 7 NYCRR 5.50-5.52). Nevertheless, the determination finding that the challenged information is neither false nor misleading and denying petitioner's request to expunge it has a rational basis (see, Matter of Scarola v. Malone, 226 A.D.2d 844, 845, 640 N.Y.S.2d 635). Thus, the petition was properly dismissed.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 18, 1999
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)