Hernandez v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. Coughlin

197 A.D.2d 913, 604 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9380

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.D.2d 913 (Hernandez 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

Hernandez v. Coughlin, 197 A.D.2d 913, 604 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Petitioner was not denied his right to a fair and impartial hearing. The record fails to establish that the interpreter provided to petitioner was inadequate. Additionally, the record reveals that petitioner was provided with the medical reports of the correction officers involved in the incident. We also reject the argument that petitioner was entitled to have the audiotape of the hearing reviewed by the superintendent as part of the administrative appeal. There is no regulatory mandate that the superintendent review a transcript or tape recording of the hearing (see, Matter of Melvin v Kelly, 126 AD2d 956, lv denied 69 NY2d 609) and, in any event, petitioner was afforded judicial review of the Hearing Officer’s determination (see, Matter of Melvin v Kelly, supra; Matter of Samuels v LeFevre, 120 AD2d 894). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.—Article 78.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Green, Lawton, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Petitioner was not denied his right to a fair and impartial hearing. The record fails to establish that the interpreter provided to petitioner was inadequate. Additionally, the record reveals that petitioner was provided with the medical reports of the correction officers involved in the incident. We also reject the argument that petitioner was entitled to have the audiotape of the hearing reviewed by the superintendent as part of the administrative appeal. There is no regulatory mandate that the superintendent review a transcript or tape recording of the hearing (see, Matter of Melvin v Kelly, 126 AD2d 956, lv denied 69 NY2d 609) and, in any event, petitioner was afforded judicial review of the Hearing Officer’s determination (see, Matter of Melvin v Kelly, supra; Matter of Samuels v LeFevre, 120 AD2d 894). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.—Article 78.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Green, Lawton, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 913, 604 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack