Clark v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. Coughlin

206 A.D.2d 567, 614 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7231

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that petitioner was guilty of possessing a weapon. The misbehavior report, which was written by the correction officer who found the instrument, states that the weapon was found in one of petitioner’s shoes in his cell. The fact that the weapon was found in his cell gives rise to an inference of impropriety even where others may have had access to his cell. Petitioner’s denials merely raised issues of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve. In addition, even accepting that petitioner’s procedural arguments were preserved for our review, they have been reviewed and rejected as unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Casey, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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 Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that petitioner was guilty of possessing a weapon. The misbehavior report, which was written by the correction officer who found the instrument, states that the weapon was found in one of petitioner’s shoes in his cell. The fact that the weapon was found in his cell gives rise to an inference of impropriety even where others may have had access to his cell. Petitioner’s denials merely raised issues of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve. In addition, even accepting that petitioner’s procedural arguments were preserved for our review, they have been reviewed and rejected as unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Casey, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Clark v. Coughlin, 206 A.D.2d 567, 614 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

206 A.D.2d 567 (Clark v. Coughlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related