Medina v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medina v. Coughlin

202 A.D.2d 1000, 609 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3369

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 1000 (Medina 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

Medina v. Coughlin, 202 A.D.2d 1000, 609 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination of respondent is supported by substantial evidence (see generally, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner’s denial of the charges presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve. The Hearing Officer was entitled to credit the charging officer’s report and the testimony of another correction officer (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra). Petitioner further challenges the propriety of the penalty imposed. He failed to raise that issue, however, either on his administrative appeal or in his petition. Petitioner thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and this Court has no discretionary power to reach that issue (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis 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: The determination of respondent is supported by substantial evidence (see generally, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner’s denial of the charges presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve. The Hearing Officer was entitled to credit the charging officer’s report and the testimony of another correction officer (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra). Petitioner further challenges the propriety of the penalty imposed. He failed to raise that issue, however, either on his administrative appeal or in his petition. Petitioner thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and this Court has no discretionary power to reach that issue (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 1000, 609 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack