Adams v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Coughlin

202 A.D.2d 1055, 609 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3472

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 1055 (Adams v. Coughlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Coughlin, 202 A.D.2d 1055, 609 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously annulled on the law and petition granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: At petitioner’s Tier III prison disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer erred in refusing petitioner’s request that a prison employee be called as a witness. Petitioner sought the employee’s testimony in support of his defense that the charges against petitioner were filed as a retaliatory measure or as harassment concerning his participation on the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee. That testimony was relevant to his defense and to the question of the veracity of the charges against him (see, Matter of Wilson v Coughlin, 186 AD2d 1090; Matter of Martin v Coughlin, 90 AD2d 946). The determination is annulled, the petition is granted, and we direct respondent to expunge all references to this incident from petitioner’s record. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Determination unanimously annulled on the law and petition granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: At petitioner’s Tier III prison disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer erred in refusing petitioner’s request that a prison employee be called as a witness. Petitioner sought the employee’s testimony in support of his defense that the charges against petitioner were filed as a retaliatory measure or as harassment concerning his participation on the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee. That testimony was relevant to his defense and to the question of the veracity of the charges against him (see, Matter of Wilson v Coughlin, 186 AD2d 1090; Matter of Martin v Coughlin, 90 AD2d 946). The determination is annulled, the petition is granted, and we direct respondent to expunge all references to this incident from petitioner’s record. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 1055, 609 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack