Sharpe v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sharpe v. Coughlin

177 A.D.2d 774, 576 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14256

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 177 A.D.2d 774 (Sharpe 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

Sharpe v. Coughlin, 177 A.D.2d 774, 576 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

We reject petitioner’s contention that the determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence. The positive [775]*775test results of two EMIT tests alone can constitute substantial evidence to support a finding that an inmate is guilty of violating a rule prohibiting the use of controlled substances (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; Matter of McKins v Coughlin, 142 AD2d 987, lv denied 74 NY2d 603). We also find no support in the record for his claim that the Hearing Officer was biased or any proof that the hearing’s outcome flowed from the alleged bias (see, Matter of Nieves v Coughlin, 157 AD2d 943). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

We reject petitioner’s contention that the determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence. The positive [775]*775test results of two EMIT tests alone can constitute substantial evidence to support a finding that an inmate is guilty of violating a rule prohibiting the use of controlled substances (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; Matter of McKins v Coughlin, 142 AD2d 987, lv denied 74 NY2d 603). We also find no support in the record for his claim that the Hearing Officer was biased or any proof that the hearing’s outcome flowed from the alleged bias (see, Matter of Nieves v Coughlin, 157 AD2d 943). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 774, 576 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharpe-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack