DeShields v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeShields v. Coughlin

222 A.D.2d 1106, 636 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14214

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1106 (DeShields 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

DeShields v. Coughlin, 222 A.D.2d 1106, 636 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent Superintendent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: We agree with the determination that petitioner violated inmate rules 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i]; failure to obey a direct order) and 107.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [i]; interference with employee).

Respondents concede, however, that there is no proof that petitioner violated inmate rule 104.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [ii]; violent conduct). Thus, the determination must be modified, that charge expunged from petitioner’s record, and the matter remitted for imposition of an appropriate penalty on the remaining violations (see, Matter of Muqtadir v Coughlin, 212 AD2d 1048; Matter of Brooks v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1115). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent Superintendent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: We agree with the determination that petitioner violated inmate rules 106.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i]; failure to obey a direct order) and 107.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [i]; interference with employee).

Respondents concede, however, that there is no proof that petitioner violated inmate rule 104.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [ii]; violent conduct). Thus, the determination must be modified, that charge expunged from petitioner’s record, and the matter remitted for imposition of an appropriate penalty on the remaining violations (see, Matter of Muqtadir v Coughlin, 212 AD2d 1048; Matter of Brooks v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1115). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1106, 636 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deshields-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack