Dawes v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dawes v. Coughlin

176 A.D.2d 415, 574 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12389

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 415 (Dawes 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

Dawes v. Coughlin, 176 A.D.2d 415, 574 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Prior Jr., J.), entered September 18, 1990 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Although petitioner argues to the contrary, the decision to exclude him from his disciplinary hearing was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Cortez v Coughlin, 115 AD2d 841, affd 67 NY2d 907). The Hearing Officer determined that the denial was required in order to promote “institutional safety or correctional goals” (7 NYCRR 254.6 [b]) and the record contains factual support for this determination (cf., Matter of Boodro v Coughlin, 142 AD2d 820). With respect to the issue of employee assistance, petitioner was given the opportunity [416]*416to select such an assistant, failed to do so, and also refused to sign the form requesting such assistance. Therefore, his decision to proceed without an assistant was a circumstance of his own creation which did not amount to a deprivation of due process (see, Matter of Peart v Kelly, 134 AD2d 843, lv denied 71 NY2d 801). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Prior Jr., J.), entered September 18, 1990 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Although petitioner argues to the contrary, the decision to exclude him from his disciplinary hearing was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Cortez v Coughlin, 115 AD2d 841, affd 67 NY2d 907). The Hearing Officer determined that the denial was required in order to promote “institutional safety or correctional goals” (7 NYCRR 254.6 [b]) and the record contains factual support for this determination (cf., Matter of Boodro v Coughlin, 142 AD2d 820). With respect to the issue of employee assistance, petitioner was given the opportunity [416]*416to select such an assistant, failed to do so, and also refused to sign the form requesting such assistance. Therefore, his decision to proceed without an assistant was a circumstance of his own creation which did not amount to a deprivation of due process (see, Matter of Peart v Kelly, 134 AD2d 843, lv denied 71 NY2d 801). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 415, 574 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawes-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack