Kanaval v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kanaval v. Coughlin

198 A.D.2d 646, 604 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10517

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 646 (Kanaval 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

Kanaval v. Coughlin, 198 A.D.2d 646, 604 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered December 11, 1992 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Even if the extensions granted for petitioner’s hearing were improper, there is no reason to expunge the finding of guilt because there was no substantive prejudice resulting from the minimum delay. Likewise without merit are petitioner’s contentions that he was not provided meaningful employee assistance or that the Hearing Officer was biased.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered December 11, 1992 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Even if the extensions granted for petitioner’s hearing were improper, there is no reason to expunge the finding of guilt because there was no substantive prejudice resulting from the minimum delay. Likewise without merit are petitioner’s contentions that he was not provided meaningful employee assistance or that the Hearing Officer was biased.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 646, 604 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanaval-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1993.