Garland v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garland v. Coughlin

198 A.D.2d 731, 603 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11010

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 731 (Garland 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

Garland v. Coughlin, 198 A.D.2d 731, 603 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Weiss, P. J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County, arranged for a transfer of $100 from his privately held money market account to another inmate in violation of the exchange of funds provision in Directive No. 4422 (7 NYCRR 720.6 [g]). Petitioner has challenged the disciplinary determination which found him guilty of violation of a prison rule by contending that the record fails to demonstrate he had notice that the conduct was prohibited. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we find that he had notice of the proscribed conduct. Inmate rule 180.11, a copy of which petitioner admittedly possessed, specifically required petitioner to follow the guidelines of Directive Nos. 4422 and 4421 and their codification at 7 NYCRR parts 720 and 721 concerning facility correspondence procedures. The foregoing constitutes proof that petitioner had the requisite notice (see, Matter of Gittens v Coughlin, 184 AD2d 812).

Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Cardona, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Weiss, P. J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County, arranged for a transfer of $100 from his privately held money market account to another inmate in violation of the exchange of funds provision in Directive No. 4422 (7 NYCRR 720.6 [g]). Petitioner has challenged the disciplinary determination which found him guilty of violation of a prison rule by contending that the record fails to demonstrate he had notice that the conduct was prohibited. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we find that he had notice of the proscribed conduct. Inmate rule 180.11, a copy of which petitioner admittedly possessed, specifically required petitioner to follow the guidelines of Directive Nos. 4422 and 4421 and their codification at 7 NYCRR parts 720 and 721 concerning facility correspondence procedures. The foregoing constitutes proof that petitioner had the requisite notice (see, Matter of Gittens v Coughlin, 184 AD2d 812).

Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Cardona, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 731, 603 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garland-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack