Heath v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heath v. Coughlin

207 A.D.2d 486, 616 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8385

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

DecidedAugust 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 486 (Heath 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

Heath v. Coughlin, 207 A.D.2d 486, 616 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination dated May 28, 1992, that the petitioner violated Prison Rule 180.11 by attempting to send money to another inmate without authorization, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated January 15, 1993, which confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Since the exchange of funds among State inmates without permission is prohibited (see, e.g., Matter of Garland v Cough[487]*487lin, 198 AD2d 731), and because it is undisputed that the petitioner attempted to withdraw funds from her inmate account so that she could transmit those funds indirectly to another State prison inmate, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed the findings of the Hearing Officer (see also, Matter of Smith v LeFevre, 116 AD2d 782; Matter of Fediuk v Coughlin, 106 AD2d 834). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination dated May 28, 1992, that the petitioner violated Prison Rule 180.11 by attempting to send money to another inmate without authorization, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated January 15, 1993, which confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Since the exchange of funds among State inmates without permission is prohibited (see, e.g., Matter of Garland v Cough[487]*487lin, 198 AD2d 731), and because it is undisputed that the petitioner attempted to withdraw funds from her inmate account so that she could transmit those funds indirectly to another State prison inmate, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed the findings of the Hearing Officer (see also, Matter of Smith v LeFevre, 116 AD2d 782; Matter of Fediuk v Coughlin, 106 AD2d 834). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 486, 616 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack