Cunningham v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. Coughlin

155 A.D.2d 456

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 456 (Cunningham 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

Cunningham v. Coughlin, 155 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Superintendent of the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, dated July 5, 1988, which upheld a determination dated May 19, 1988 finding, after a hearing, that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Following a Tier III disciplinary hearing, it was determined [457]*457that the petitioner failed to obey a direct order, in violation of prison rules. The record indicates that the determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Superintendent of the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, dated July 5, 1988, which upheld a determination dated May 19, 1988 finding, after a hearing, that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and imposing a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Following a Tier III disciplinary hearing, it was determined [457]*457that the petitioner failed to obey a direct order, in violation of prison rules. The record indicates that the determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack