Grillo v. Coughlin

201 A.D.2d 905, 607 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2074
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 4, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 905 (Grillo 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
Grillo v. Coughlin, 201 A.D.2d 905, 607 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously vacated, determination modified on the law and as modified confirmed and matter remitted to respondent Superintendent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding presented a substantial evidence question, it should have been transferred to this Court (see, CPLR 7804 [g]; Matter of Lynch v Coughlin, 198 AD2d 889). We consider the matter de novo, as if it had been properly transferred (see, Matter of Lynch v Coughlin, supra; Matter of Melvin v Kelly, 126 AD2d 956, lv denied 69 NY2d 609).

The determination that petitioner possessed stolen property in violation of inmate rule 116.13 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [17] [iv]) is not supported by substantial evidence. Respondents presented no evidence that the property in petitioner’s possession had been stolen. We modify, therefore, by annulling so much of the determination as found petitioner guilty of violating inmate rule 116.13 and directing that all entries in petitioner’s record relating thereto be expunged and remit the matter to respondent Superintendent for the imposition of an appropriate penalty on the remaining violations.

Respondents failed to demonstrate that this proceeding was time-barred. The only document bearing on that issue was filed with the County Clerk two days after Supreme Court issued its order, and the record is devoid of any other evidence that would support a dismissal of the petition upon that ground.

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — Article 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

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

Related

Medina v. Graham
71 A.D.3d 1598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Rand v. Herbert
219 A.D.2d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 A.D.2d 905, 607 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grillo-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1994.