Rogers v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rogers v. Coughlin

191 A.D.2d 1001, 595 N.Y.S.2d 343

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 1001 (Rogers 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

Rogers v. Coughlin, 191 A.D.2d 1001, 595 N.Y.S.2d 343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Respondents’ determination that petitioner was guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules 1.00 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [A]; violation of Penal Law), 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]; conspiracy to sell controlled substances) and 114.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i]; smuggling) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615). The misbehavior report and the testimony of Correction Officer Dunleavy were "sufficiently relevant and probative to support the findings of the hearing officer” (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra, at 616-617). There is no merit to petitioner’s contentions regarding either the sufficiency of the misbehavior report (see, 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [1]; Matter of Martin v Coughlin, 173 AD2d 1039, 1040; Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe, 105 AD2d 913, 914, affd 66 NY2d 835) or his claimed denial of the right to conduct a proper defense.

Finally, contrary to petitioner’s argument, the Superintendent’s decision to revoke the visitation privileges of petitioner’s wife was independent of the Tier III Superintendent’s hearing and was not a part of respondents’ determination now challenged (see, Matter of Inman v Coughlin, 156 AD2d 786, [1002]*1002787). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Boomer, 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: Respondents’ determination that petitioner was guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules 1.00 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [A]; violation of Penal Law), 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]; conspiracy to sell controlled substances) and 114.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i]; smuggling) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615). The misbehavior report and the testimony of Correction Officer Dunleavy were "sufficiently relevant and probative to support the findings of the hearing officer” (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra, at 616-617). There is no merit to petitioner’s contentions regarding either the sufficiency of the misbehavior report (see, 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [1]; Matter of Martin v Coughlin, 173 AD2d 1039, 1040; Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe, 105 AD2d 913, 914, affd 66 NY2d 835) or his claimed denial of the right to conduct a proper defense.

Finally, contrary to petitioner’s argument, the Superintendent’s decision to revoke the visitation privileges of petitioner’s wife was independent of the Tier III Superintendent’s hearing and was not a part of respondents’ determination now challenged (see, Matter of Inman v Coughlin, 156 AD2d 786, [1002]*1002787). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 1001, 595 N.Y.S.2d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack