Cappello v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cappello v. Coughlin

178 A.D.2d 1026

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 1026 (Cappello 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

Cappello v. Coughlin, 178 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination was supported by substantial evidence. The transcript of information given by the confidential informants and submitted to us for review in camera substantiates the charges and the record shows that the Hearing Officer assessed the reliability of the [1027]*1027information provided by the confidential informants and that he had an objective basis for his decision (see, Matter of Carter v Kelly, 159 AD2d 1006, 1008). Petitioner failed to raise the other issues addressed in his brief either at the hearing or upon administrative appeal and, thus, has failed to preserve them for review. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

— Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination was supported by substantial evidence. The transcript of information given by the confidential informants and submitted to us for review in camera substantiates the charges and the record shows that the Hearing Officer assessed the reliability of the [1027]*1027information provided by the confidential informants and that he had an objective basis for his decision (see, Matter of Carter v Kelly, 159 AD2d 1006, 1008). Petitioner failed to raise the other issues addressed in his brief either at the hearing or upon administrative appeal and, thus, has failed to preserve them for review. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 1026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cappello-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack