Hizbullahankhamon v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hizbullahankhamon v. Coughlin

216 A.D.2d 869, 628 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7177

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 869 (Hizbullahankhamon 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

Hizbullahankhamon v. Coughlin, 216 A.D.2d 869, 628 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

Determination annulled on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: The determination finding petitioner guilty of violating inmate rule 117.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [18] [i]) must be annulled. That rule prohibits inmates from possessing "explosive devices or materials that can be used to make explosive devices”. Notes, drawings and diagrams regarding the instruction and assembly of pipe bombs, hot pot bombs, and booby traps were found in petitioner’s cell. Those documents do not constitute "explosive devices” or materials that can be used to make them within the meaning of rule 117.10; if documents are intended to come within its ambit, the rule should be amended accordingly.

All concur except Wesley and Balio, JJ., who dissent and vote to confirm in the following Memorandum:

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

Determination annulled on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: The determination finding petitioner guilty of violating inmate rule 117.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [18] [i]) must be annulled. That rule prohibits inmates from possessing "explosive devices or materials that can be used to make explosive devices”. Notes, drawings and diagrams regarding the instruction and assembly of pipe bombs, hot pot bombs, and booby traps were found in petitioner’s cell. Those documents do not constitute "explosive devices” or materials that can be used to make them within the meaning of rule 117.10; if documents are intended to come within its ambit, the rule should be amended accordingly.

All concur except Wesley and Balio, JJ., who dissent and vote to confirm in the following Memorandum:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 869, 628 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hizbullahankhamon-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack