From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 5, 1996
231 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

September 5 1996.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ.


As the result of an incident in which petitioner was observed chasing another inmate in the recreation yard with a razor-type weapon, he was found guilty of rioting and possessing a weapon. He challenges this determination on the basis that it is not supported by substantial evidence, that he was denied effective employee assistance and that he was denied the right to call certain witnesses. Initially, we find that the misbehavior report, combined with the testimony of correction officers present at the scene of the incident, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination. We further find that insofar as petitioner failed to challenge the adequacy of his employee assistance at the hearing, he has failed to preserve this claim for review. Lastly, given petitioner's failure to request that additional witnesses be called to testify on his behalf at the hearing, we find his final claim to be without merit.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

In re Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 5, 1996
231 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

In re Coughlin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOEL BOBET, Petitioner, v. THOMAS A. COUGHLIN, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 5, 1996

Citations

231 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
647 N.Y.S.2d 119

Citing Cases

Matter of Brooks v. State

Further, to the extent that petitioner's challenge to the Hearing Officer's bias might be construed as an…

Lunney v. Goord

Inasmuch as petitioner was not free to disobey the order on the ground that he believed it was improper (see,…