Hardwick v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hardwick v. Coughlin

187 A.D.2d 1034, 591 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14093

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 1034 (Hardwick 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

Hardwick v. Coughlin, 187 A.D.2d 1034, 591 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The written misbehavior report, which describes with specificity the incident from which the charges arose, was authored by a Correction Officer who participated in the incident and co-signed by two other Correction Officers. That report constitutes substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer’s determination of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 140). Petitioner’s argument that the Hearing Officer should have more fully investigated the charges against him is without merit. The Hearing Officer is under no obligation to call the reporting officer as a witness (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 617), nor is the Hearing Officer required to make petitioner’s case for him (Matter of Rivera v Coughlin, 179 AD2d 949; Matter of Jackson v LeFevre, 128 AD2d 1001, 1002). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme [1035]*1035Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The written misbehavior report, which describes with specificity the incident from which the charges arose, was authored by a Correction Officer who participated in the incident and co-signed by two other Correction Officers. That report constitutes substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer’s determination of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 140). Petitioner’s argument that the Hearing Officer should have more fully investigated the charges against him is without merit. The Hearing Officer is under no obligation to call the reporting officer as a witness (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 617), nor is the Hearing Officer required to make petitioner’s case for him (Matter of Rivera v Coughlin, 179 AD2d 949; Matter of Jackson v LeFevre, 128 AD2d 1001, 1002). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme [1035]*1035Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 1034, 591 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardwick-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack