LaFrance v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaFrance v. Coughlin

204 A.D.2d 971, 614 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6771

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

DecidedMay 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 971 (LaFrance 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

LaFrance v. Coughlin, 204 A.D.2d 971, 614 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: In this pro se CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to our Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), petitioner contends that respondents violated his due process rights by failing to abide by their rules and regulations when [972]*972he was involuntarily placed in administrative segregation. That contention is without merit because petitioner had not been charged with any violation of prison regulations (see, Matter of Blake v Coughlin, 189 AD2d 1016, 1017; Matter of Bryant v Mann, 160 AD2d 1086, 1088, Iv denied 76 NY2d 706). The hearing was held to determine whether petitioner should be administratively segregated for reasons of prison security (see, Matter of Bryant v Mann, supra, at 1089). We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Robinson v Leonardo, 179 AD2d 951, Iv denied 79 NY2d 759). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: In this pro se CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to our Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), petitioner contends that respondents violated his due process rights by failing to abide by their rules and regulations when [972]*972he was involuntarily placed in administrative segregation. That contention is without merit because petitioner had not been charged with any violation of prison regulations (see, Matter of Blake v Coughlin, 189 AD2d 1016, 1017; Matter of Bryant v Mann, 160 AD2d 1086, 1088, Iv denied 76 NY2d 706). The hearing was held to determine whether petitioner should be administratively segregated for reasons of prison security (see, Matter of Bryant v Mann, supra, at 1089). We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Robinson v Leonardo, 179 AD2d 951, Iv denied 79 NY2d 759). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 971, 614 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lafrance-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack