Buckhannon v. Kelly

124 A.D.2d 984, 508 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62299
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 1986·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

124 A.D.2d 984 (Buckhannon v. Kelly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holmes v. Coughlin
152 A.D.2d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Lonski ex rel. Adams v. Coughlin
126 A.D.2d 966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)