Boyd v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boyd v. Coughlin

216 A.D.2d 617, 627 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5848

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

DecidedJune 1, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 617 (Boyd 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

Boyd v. Coughlin, 216 A.D.2d 617, 627 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered June 28,1994 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule when he exposed himself to a female nurse while she was conducting a sick call. Petitioner contends on this appeal that his due process rights were violated by the Hearing Officer’s failure to allow him to call a particular inmate or to recall a correction officer to testify at the hearing. In view of the substantive testimony of other inmates as well as the prior testimony of the correction officer, we agree with Supreme Court that the proffered testimony would be redundant. Accordingly, we find that petitioner’s due process rights were not violated.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered June 28,1994 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule when he exposed himself to a female nurse while she was conducting a sick call. Petitioner contends on this appeal that his due process rights were violated by the Hearing Officer’s failure to allow him to call a particular inmate or to recall a correction officer to testify at the hearing. In view of the substantive testimony of other inmates as well as the prior testimony of the correction officer, we agree with Supreme Court that the proffered testimony would be redundant. Accordingly, we find that petitioner’s due process rights were not violated.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 617, 627 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack