James v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

James v. Coughlin

170 A.D.2d 980, 566 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1705

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 170 A.D.2d 980 (James 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

James v. Coughlin, 170 A.D.2d 980, 566 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Determinations unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determinations that petitioner violated institutional rules on May 20, 1989 and July 6, 1989 are supported by substantial evidence contained in the misbehavior reports of each incident (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). The testimony of petitioner and his witnesses raised issues of credibility which were for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615). Petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was not fair and impartial in his conduct of the second hearing was not preserved for review (see, Matter of Benitez v Coughlin, 159 AD2d 986, 987) and lacks merit in any event. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

Determinations unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determinations that petitioner violated institutional rules on May 20, 1989 and July 6, 1989 are supported by substantial evidence contained in the misbehavior reports of each incident (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130). The testimony of petitioner and his witnesses raised issues of credibility which were for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615). Petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was not fair and impartial in his conduct of the second hearing was not preserved for review (see, Matter of Benitez v Coughlin, 159 AD2d 986, 987) and lacks merit in any event. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 980, 566 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack