Brown v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Coughlin

169 A.D.2d 928, 564 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 133

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 928 (Brown 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

Brown v. Coughlin, 169 A.D.2d 928, 564 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Although the misbehavior report was made by a correction officer who did not actually witness the assault, the report set forth the officer’s conversation with the victim and the victim’s identification of petitioner took place immediately after the assault. Under the circumstances, the report contained sufficient information of a relevant and probative nature to [929]*929support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 156 AD2d 806, affd 76 NY2d 964; Matter of Colon v Coughlin, 147 AD2d 802). Furthermore, any questions of credibility were for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Hernandez v LeFevre, 150 AD2d 954, lv denied 74 NY2d 615).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

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

Although the misbehavior report was made by a correction officer who did not actually witness the assault, the report set forth the officer’s conversation with the victim and the victim’s identification of petitioner took place immediately after the assault. Under the circumstances, the report contained sufficient information of a relevant and probative nature to [929]*929support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 156 AD2d 806, affd 76 NY2d 964; Matter of Colon v Coughlin, 147 AD2d 802). Furthermore, any questions of credibility were for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Hernandez v LeFevre, 150 AD2d 954, lv denied 74 NY2d 615).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 928, 564 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack