Lee v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lee v. Coughlin

195 A.D.2d 997, 600 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 195 A.D.2d 997 (Lee 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

Lee v. Coughlin, 195 A.D.2d 997, 600 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Respondents’ determination is supported by substantial evidence. The Hearing Officer erred in failing to notify petitioner before issuing a determination that confidential information would be considered and in failing to articulate a reason for keeping that information confidential (see generally, Matter of Odom v Kelly, 152 AD2d 1010; Matter of Freeman v Coughlin, 138 AD2d 824, 825-826; Matter of Boyd v Coughlin, 105 AD2d 532, 533-534). We conclude that the error was harmless, however, because the contents of the confidential information were identical to a misbehavior report filed by a Correction Officer, which was part of the evidence at the hearing, and because the evidence, without considering the confidential information, was legally sufficient to sustain the charges (see, Matter of Boyd v Coughlin, supra). Additionally, petitioner was found not guilty of possessing a weapon, which was the only charge to which the confidential report was relevant, and therefore he was not prejudiced by its use. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boomer 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: Respondents’ determination is supported by substantial evidence. The Hearing Officer erred in failing to notify petitioner before issuing a determination that confidential information would be considered and in failing to articulate a reason for keeping that information confidential (see generally, Matter of Odom v Kelly, 152 AD2d 1010; Matter of Freeman v Coughlin, 138 AD2d 824, 825-826; Matter of Boyd v Coughlin, 105 AD2d 532, 533-534). We conclude that the error was harmless, however, because the contents of the confidential information were identical to a misbehavior report filed by a Correction Officer, which was part of the evidence at the hearing, and because the evidence, without considering the confidential information, was legally sufficient to sustain the charges (see, Matter of Boyd v Coughlin, supra). Additionally, petitioner was found not guilty of possessing a weapon, which was the only charge to which the confidential report was relevant, and therefore he was not prejudiced by its use. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 997, 600 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack