Fortuna v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fortuna v. Coughlin

222 A.D.2d 588, 636 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12913

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 588 (Fortuna 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

Fortuna v. Coughlin, 222 A.D.2d 588, 636 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Thomas Coughlin, III, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correction, dated August 12, 1993, which found that the petitioner violated 7 NYCRR 270.2 (B) (3) (i), and imposed a penalty of 180 days in the Special Housing Unit and one year’s loss of good time.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the Commissioner’s determination (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 118; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130; Matter of Vargas v Strack, 220 AD2d 675; Matter of Oro v Keane, 211 AD2d 796). Further, the penalties imposed were not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are lacking in merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Hart, 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 Thomas Coughlin, III, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correction, dated August 12, 1993, which found that the petitioner violated 7 NYCRR 270.2 (B) (3) (i), and imposed a penalty of 180 days in the Special Housing Unit and one year’s loss of good time.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the Commissioner’s determination (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 NY2d 113, 118; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130; Matter of Vargas v Strack, 220 AD2d 675; Matter of Oro v Keane, 211 AD2d 796). Further, the penalties imposed were not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are lacking in merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 588, 636 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortuna-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack