Urgitano v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Urgitano v. Coughlin

191 A.D.2d 1047, 595 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3053

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 1047 (Urgitano 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

Urgitano v. Coughlin, 191 A.D.2d 1047, 595 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously annulled on the law and petition granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: In this Tier III prisoner disciplinary proceeding, respondents concede that the inmate misbehavior report did not constitute substantial evidence in support of the charge of rioting because the report, which was the only evidence presented against petitioner, failed to state the specific role petitioner played in the riot (see, 7 NYCRR 251-1.4 [c], [d] [effective on May 29, 1991, the date of subject incident]; Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642; Matter of Bettis v Coughlin, 186 AD2d 1080). The misbehavior report also fails to support the [1048]*1048charge of leaving an assigned area (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [10] [ii]) because it does not state facts indicating that the inmate left the assigned area without authorization. Thus, we annul the determination, vacate the penalty imposed and direct that all reference to this disciplinary proceeding be expunged from petitioner’s record (see, Matter of Bettis v Coughlin, supra). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Boomer and Davis, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously annulled on the law and petition granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: In this Tier III prisoner disciplinary proceeding, respondents concede that the inmate misbehavior report did not constitute substantial evidence in support of the charge of rioting because the report, which was the only evidence presented against petitioner, failed to state the specific role petitioner played in the riot (see, 7 NYCRR 251-1.4 [c], [d] [effective on May 29, 1991, the date of subject incident]; Matter of Bryant v Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642; Matter of Bettis v Coughlin, 186 AD2d 1080). The misbehavior report also fails to support the [1048]*1048charge of leaving an assigned area (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [10] [ii]) because it does not state facts indicating that the inmate left the assigned area without authorization. Thus, we annul the determination, vacate the penalty imposed and direct that all reference to this disciplinary proceeding be expunged from petitioner’s record (see, Matter of Bettis v Coughlin, supra). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Boomer and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 1047, 595 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urgitano-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack