Guyton v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guyton v. Coughlin

214 A.D.2d 1043, 627 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6871

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

DecidedApril 28, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 1043 (Guyton 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

Guyton v. Coughlin, 214 A.D.2d 1043, 627 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), petitioner contends that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615). Petitioner further contends that the Hearing Officer should sua sponte have called as a witness the correction officer who authored the misbehavior reports. He contends that his due process rights were thereby violated. Having failed to raise that contention on his administrative appeal, petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to it (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). In any event, that contention lacks merit (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra; Matter of Hardwick v Coughlin, 187 AD2d 1034, lv denied 81 NY2d 707). (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 confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), petitioner contends that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615). Petitioner further contends that the Hearing Officer should sua sponte have called as a witness the correction officer who authored the misbehavior reports. He contends that his due process rights were thereby violated. Having failed to raise that contention on his administrative appeal, petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to it (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). In any event, that contention lacks merit (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra; Matter of Hardwick v Coughlin, 187 AD2d 1034, lv denied 81 NY2d 707). (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)

214 A.D.2d 1043, 627 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guyton-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack