Lynch v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lynch v. Coughlin

198 A.D.2d 889, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11537

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 889 (Lynch 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

Lynch v. Coughlin, 198 A.D.2d 889, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously vacated, determination confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Because petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding presented a substantial evidence question, it should have been transferred to this Court (see, CPLR 7804 [g]; Matty of Benesch v Village of Clayton, 185 AD2d 688, lv denied 81 NY2d 702, rearg denied 81 NY2d 912; Matter of Melvin v Kelly, 126 AD2d 956, lv denied 69 NY2d 609). We consider the matter de novo, as if it had been properly transferred (see, Matter of Benesch v Village of Clayton, supra; Matter of Melvin v Kelly, supra).

Respondents’ determination that petitioner violated institutional rules by refusing a direct order (see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i]) and making threats (see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [3] [i]) is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner remained in the custody of prison officials during his treatment at Erie County Medical Center (see, Correction Law § 23 [2]) and was not free to decide "which orders to obey and which to ignore” (Matter of Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d 501, 516). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Griffith, J. — Article 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously vacated, determination confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Because petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding presented a substantial evidence question, it should have been transferred to this Court (see, CPLR 7804 [g]; Matty of Benesch v Village of Clayton, 185 AD2d 688, lv denied 81 NY2d 702, rearg denied 81 NY2d 912; Matter of Melvin v Kelly, 126 AD2d 956, lv denied 69 NY2d 609). We consider the matter de novo, as if it had been properly transferred (see, Matter of Benesch v Village of Clayton, supra; Matter of Melvin v Kelly, supra).

Respondents’ determination that petitioner violated institutional rules by refusing a direct order (see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [7] [i]) and making threats (see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [3] [i]) is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner remained in the custody of prison officials during his treatment at Erie County Medical Center (see, Correction Law § 23 [2]) and was not free to decide "which orders to obey and which to ignore” (Matter of Rivera v Smith, 63 NY2d 501, 516). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Griffith, J. — Article 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 889, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack