Fedrick v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fedrick v. Coughlin

224 A.D.2d 1024, 638 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1709

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 1024 (Fedrick 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

Fedrick v. Coughlin, 224 A.D.2d 1024, 638 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Respondent’s determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.15 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [vi]) is not supported by substantial evidence "inasmuch as a PIN number is not an 'article’ within the meaning of that rule” (Matter of Muqtadir v Coughlin, 212 AD2d 1048, 1049). Thus, we modify the determination by granting in part the petition, annulling the determination that petitioner violated that rule and vacating the penalty imposed, and we remit the matter to respondent for imposition of an appropriate penalty on the remaining violations (see, Matter of Muqtadir v Coughlin, supra).

The contention that the disciplinary hearing was untimely commenced and completed in violation of 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a) and (b) is raised for the first time in petitioner’s pro se supplemental brief, and thus petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to that contention (see, Matter of Bates v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 854, lv denied 74 NY2d 602). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Davis, 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 for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Respondent’s determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.15 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [vi]) is not supported by substantial evidence "inasmuch as a PIN number is not an 'article’ within the meaning of that rule” (Matter of Muqtadir v Coughlin, 212 AD2d 1048, 1049). Thus, we modify the determination by granting in part the petition, annulling the determination that petitioner violated that rule and vacating the penalty imposed, and we remit the matter to respondent for imposition of an appropriate penalty on the remaining violations (see, Matter of Muqtadir v Coughlin, supra).

The contention that the disciplinary hearing was untimely commenced and completed in violation of 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a) and (b) is raised for the first time in petitioner’s pro se supplemental brief, and thus petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to that contention (see, Matter of Bates v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 854, lv denied 74 NY2d 602). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 1024, 638 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fedrick-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack