Taylor v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Coughlin

214 A.D.2d 1047, 626 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6884

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

DecidedApril 28, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 1047 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. Coughlin, 214 A.D.2d 1047, 626 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner contends that the Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility did not have the authority to open petitioner’s incoming and outgoing mail. That contention was not raised at petitioner’s Tier III hearing and, therefore, petitioner did not exhaust his administrative remedies (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). Furthermore, the misbehavior report, coupled with petitioner’s testimony at the hearing, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination of respondent that petitioner violated an inmate behavior rule by including a letter in outgoing mail that was not intended for the addressee identified on the exterior of the envelope (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, 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: Petitioner contends that the Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility did not have the authority to open petitioner’s incoming and outgoing mail. That contention was not raised at petitioner’s Tier III hearing and, therefore, petitioner did not exhaust his administrative remedies (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). Furthermore, the misbehavior report, coupled with petitioner’s testimony at the hearing, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination of respondent that petitioner violated an inmate behavior rule by including a letter in outgoing mail that was not intended for the addressee identified on the exterior of the envelope (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615, 616-617). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 1047, 626 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack