Buckhannon v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buckhannon v. Kelly

124 A.D.2d 984, 508 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62299

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 984 (Buckhannon v. Kelly) 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

Buckhannon v. Kelly, 124 A.D.2d 984, 508 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: In each of these appeals an inmate charged with violating a disciplinary rule requested to be present when his witnesses were interviewed during a Superintendent’s proceeding. The respective Hearing Officers denied each request on the ground that the witnesses’ presence in special confinement units would jeopardize the security of the units or the safety of the witnesses. On these records, those reasons were rationally based (see, Matter of Cortez v Coughlin, 67 NY2d 907, 909; People ex rel. Bradley v Smith, 115 AD2d 225; see also, Matter of Tracey v Coughlin, 122 AD2d 459). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Newman, J. — art 78.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Memorandum: In each of these appeals an inmate charged with violating a disciplinary rule requested to be present when his witnesses were interviewed during a Superintendent’s proceeding. The respective Hearing Officers denied each request on the ground that the witnesses’ presence in special confinement units would jeopardize the security of the units or the safety of the witnesses. On these records, those reasons were rationally based (see, Matter of Cortez v Coughlin, 67 NY2d 907, 909; People ex rel. Bradley v Smith, 115 AD2d 225; see also, Matter of Tracey v Coughlin, 122 AD2d 459). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Newman, J. — art 78.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 984, 508 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckhannon-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack