Rouse v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rouse v. Coughlin

219 A.D.2d 858, 632 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10978

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 858 (Rouse 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

Rouse v. Coughlin, 219 A.D.2d 858, 632 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The detailed misbehavior report, authored by a correction officer who observed the incident and cosigned by another correction officer who also observed the incident, constitutes substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]), prohibiting the possession of contraband that may be classified as a weapon (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617). Petitioner’s denial of the charge presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, supra, at 966; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra, at 617). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The detailed misbehavior report, authored by a correction officer who observed the incident and cosigned by another correction officer who also observed the incident, constitutes substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i]), prohibiting the possession of contraband that may be classified as a weapon (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617). Petitioner’s denial of the charge presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, supra, at 966; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, supra, at 617). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 858, 632 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rouse-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack