Rivera v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Coughlin

179 A.D.2d 949, 579 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 872

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 179 A.D.2d 949 (Rivera 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

Rivera v. Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 949, 579 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner claims that the Hearing Officer improperly failed to investigate the fight which led to the charges against him and to review the misbehavior reports issued to other inmates involved in the incident. Petitioner never objected, however, to the procedure at the hearing at a time when any error could have been corrected; he is therefore precluded from raising the issue before this court (see, Matter of Finn v Leonardo, 160 AD2d 1074). In any event, petitioner declined to testify, to answer the Hearing Officer’s questions or to call any witnesses. He also waived any assistance. Therefore, insofar as the Hearing Officer had no obligation to present petitioner’s case for him, petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer should have further investigated the charges is rejected (see, Matter of Jackson v LeFevre, 128 AD2d 1001). Finally, the misbehavior report, which was authored by the correction officer who witnessed the incident, contained information of a relevant and probative nature so as to constitute substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964; Matter of Bernacet v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 802, lv denied 74 NY2d 603). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Casey, 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

Petitioner claims that the Hearing Officer improperly failed to investigate the fight which led to the charges against him and to review the misbehavior reports issued to other inmates involved in the incident. Petitioner never objected, however, to the procedure at the hearing at a time when any error could have been corrected; he is therefore precluded from raising the issue before this court (see, Matter of Finn v Leonardo, 160 AD2d 1074). In any event, petitioner declined to testify, to answer the Hearing Officer’s questions or to call any witnesses. He also waived any assistance. Therefore, insofar as the Hearing Officer had no obligation to present petitioner’s case for him, petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer should have further investigated the charges is rejected (see, Matter of Jackson v LeFevre, 128 AD2d 1001). Finally, the misbehavior report, which was authored by the correction officer who witnessed the incident, contained information of a relevant and probative nature so as to constitute substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964; Matter of Bernacet v Coughlin, 145 AD2d 802, lv denied 74 NY2d 603). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 949, 579 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack