McDowell v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McDowell v. Coughlin

222 A.D.2d 915, 635 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13337

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 915 (McDowell 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

McDowell v. Coughlin, 222 A.D.2d 915, 635 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Greene County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

As the result of the discovery of a razor blade in petitioner’s cell, he was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing a weapon. In support of [916]*916his challenge to this determination, petitioner contends that the misbehavior report did not adequately apprise him of the charges against him and that he was improperly denied the right to be present during the search of his cell. Contrary to petitioner’s first claim, it is evident that the correction officer who prepared the report mistakenly dated it October 13, 1994, instead of October 18, 1994, which was the date of the incident. The description of the incident contained in the misbehavior report clearly stated that it occurred on October 18,1994. Accordingly, we find that the misbehavior report sufficiently apprised petitioner of the charges against him. We further find that this report, combined with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination. Lastly, we have considered petitioner’s claim that he was improperly denied the right to be present during the search and find that, because he failed to raise it at the Superintendent’s hearing, he has failed to preserve it for our review.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Greene County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

As the result of the discovery of a razor blade in petitioner’s cell, he was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing a weapon. In support of [916]*916his challenge to this determination, petitioner contends that the misbehavior report did not adequately apprise him of the charges against him and that he was improperly denied the right to be present during the search of his cell. Contrary to petitioner’s first claim, it is evident that the correction officer who prepared the report mistakenly dated it October 13, 1994, instead of October 18, 1994, which was the date of the incident. The description of the incident contained in the misbehavior report clearly stated that it occurred on October 18,1994. Accordingly, we find that the misbehavior report sufficiently apprised petitioner of the charges against him. We further find that this report, combined with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination. Lastly, we have considered petitioner’s claim that he was improperly denied the right to be present during the search and find that, because he failed to raise it at the Superintendent’s hearing, he has failed to preserve it for our review.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 915, 635 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdowell-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack