Irizarry v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Irizarry v. Coughlin

187 A.D.2d 1035, 593 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14098

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 1035 (Irizarry 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

Irizarry v. Coughlin, 187 A.D.2d 1035, 593 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that the Hearing Officer in this prison disciplinary proceeding was obligated to investigate petitioner’s assertion that the misbehavior report had been fabricated. Based upon the evidence relied upon by the Hearing Officer, which included the misbehavior report, the photograph of the contraband seized, petitioner’s statement, the statement of an inmate witness and certain confidential evidence, we find substantial evidence to support the determination rendered (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that the Hearing Officer in this prison disciplinary proceeding was obligated to investigate petitioner’s assertion that the misbehavior report had been fabricated. Based upon the evidence relied upon by the Hearing Officer, which included the misbehavior report, the photograph of the contraband seized, petitioner’s statement, the statement of an inmate witness and certain confidential evidence, we find substantial evidence to support the determination rendered (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 1035, 593 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irizarry-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack