Richardson v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richardson v. Coughlin

180 A.D.2d 846, 580 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1178

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 846 (Richardson 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

Richardson v. Coughlin, 180 A.D.2d 846, 580 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered March 12, 1991 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition based on documentary evidence.

We reject petitioner’s contention that because the disciplinary proceedings were commenced more than seven days after his restrictive confinement, the time limitations of 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a) were violated. The record shows that the extensions were timely requested and granted (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]; Matter of Agosto v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 1008). The adjournments, which occurred in order to locate the witnesses requested by petitioner and to await the videotape of the prison disturbance at issue, were authorized pursuant to the provisions of the regulation (see, Matter of McCoy v Leonardo, 175 AD2d 358). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and we agree with Supreme Court that they should be rejected as being without merit or unpreserved for review.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Mahoney, 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 from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered March 12, 1991 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition based on documentary evidence.

We reject petitioner’s contention that because the disciplinary proceedings were commenced more than seven days after his restrictive confinement, the time limitations of 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a) were violated. The record shows that the extensions were timely requested and granted (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]; Matter of Agosto v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 1008). The adjournments, which occurred in order to locate the witnesses requested by petitioner and to await the videotape of the prison disturbance at issue, were authorized pursuant to the provisions of the regulation (see, Matter of McCoy v Leonardo, 175 AD2d 358). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and we agree with Supreme Court that they should be rejected as being without merit or unpreserved for review.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 846, 580 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack