Lewis v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Coughlin

198 A.D.2d 507, 605 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11053

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, dated July 4, 1990, which, after a superintendent’s hearing, found the petitioner guilty of violating rules of inmate conduct and imposed a penalty of confinement to a special housing unit for a period of three years.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner was not denied a fair hearing by the Hearing Officer’s refusal to call one of several correction officers who witnessed the incident and to furnish the petitioner with a report prepared by another correction officer who witnessed the incident and was called to testify. The additional testimony and the report would have been either redundant or immaterial (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]; Matter of Sanchez v Irvin, 186 AD2d 996). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, dated July 4, 1990, which, after a superintendent’s hearing, found the petitioner guilty of violating rules of inmate conduct and imposed a penalty of confinement to a special housing unit for a period of three years.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner was not denied a fair hearing by the Hearing Officer’s refusal to call one of several correction officers who witnessed the incident and to furnish the petitioner with a report prepared by another correction officer who witnessed the incident and was called to testify. The additional testimony and the report would have been either redundant or immaterial (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]; Matter of Sanchez v Irvin, 186 AD2d 996). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Lewis v. Coughlin, 198 A.D.2d 507, 605 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

198 A.D.2d 507 (Lewis v. Coughlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related