From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. New York City Dep't of Corr.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 19, 2012
94 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-04-19

In re Thomas MITCHELL, etc., Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondent–Respondent.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Barbara P. Hamilton of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (William K. Chang of counsel), for respondent.


Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Barbara P. Hamilton of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (William K. Chang of counsel), for respondent.

GONZALEZ, P.J., SAXE, SWEENY, ACOSTA, RENWICK, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George R. Villegas, J.), entered on or about August 18, 2010, denying the petition to annul respondent's determination, dated February 22, 2010, which found petitioner guilty of assaulting three corrections officers and imposed a penalty of 90 days in solitary confinement and restitution of $100, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the petition granted, the determination annulled, the charges against petitioner dismissed, and respondent directed to expunge all references to the charges from petitioner's institutional records.

The hearing officer failed to provide petitioner with a written statement summarizing the testimony of three witnesses who testified in his favor, and failed to state her reasons for rejecting the testimony of those witnesses and of petitioner, in violation of New York City Department of Correction Directive 6500R–B(III)(C)(38)(d). Respondent is required to comply with its own regulation ( see Matter of Bryant v. Coughlin, 77 N.Y.2d 642, 647, 569 N.Y.S.2d 582, 572 N.E.2d 23 [1991] ).

Respondent waived its defense that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing to raise the defense in its answer ( see Matter of SCS Bus. & Tech. Inst. v. Barrios–Paoli, 156 A.D.2d 288, 548 N.Y.S.2d 674 [1989] ).


Summaries of

Mitchell v. New York City Dep't of Corr.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 19, 2012
94 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Mitchell v. New York City Dep't of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:In re Thomas MITCHELL, etc., Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 19, 2012

Citations

94 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
942 N.Y.S.2d 499
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2947

Citing Cases

A.E. v. Hamilton Coll.

As a preliminary matter, we reject respondents' contention that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative…