Pledger v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pledger v. Coughlin

205 A.D.2d 832, 615 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5826

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

DecidedJune 2, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 832 (Pledger 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

Pledger v. Coughlin, 205 A.D.2d 832, 615 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hillery, J.), entered June 2, 1992 in Dutchess County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged with violation of State-wide rules prohibiting assault on staff, threats, refusing a direct order and being out of place. After a Superintendent’s hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges except being out of place. Petitioner instituted a CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court to annul respondent’s determination, alleging that he was denied his right to an employee assistant. Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

We affirm. Initially, given that access to a tape recording of the Superintendent’s hearing was provided to all parties, petitioner has failed to show that any prejudice resulted from respondent’s failure to file a certified transcript of the hearing as required by CPLR 7804 (e). As to the proceeding itself, the record establishes that by his actions petitioner waived any right to an employee assistant.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hillery, J.), entered June 2, 1992 in Dutchess County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged with violation of State-wide rules prohibiting assault on staff, threats, refusing a direct order and being out of place. After a Superintendent’s hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges except being out of place. Petitioner instituted a CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court to annul respondent’s determination, alleging that he was denied his right to an employee assistant. Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

We affirm. Initially, given that access to a tape recording of the Superintendent’s hearing was provided to all parties, petitioner has failed to show that any prejudice resulted from respondent’s failure to file a certified transcript of the hearing as required by CPLR 7804 (e). As to the proceeding itself, the record establishes that by his actions petitioner waived any right to an employee assistant.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 832, 615 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pledger-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack