Vanderpool v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vanderpool v. Coughlin

212 A.D.2d 1019, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1895

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 1995·Published

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly directed respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioner on charges of absconding from a temporary release program (see, 7 NYCRR 1904.2 [b]). Upon our review of the record, we reject the contention that petitioner was denied procedural due process and suffered substantial prejudice as a result of respondents’ actions (cf., Matter of Howard v Coughlin, 190 AD2d 1090, 1091). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.—Article 78.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly directed respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioner on charges of absconding from a temporary release program (see, 7 NYCRR 1904.2 [b]). Upon our review of the record, we reject the contention that petitioner was denied procedural due process and suffered substantial prejudice as a result of respondents’ actions (cf., Matter of Howard v Coughlin, 190 AD2d 1090, 1091). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.—Article 78.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Vanderpool v. Coughlin, 212 A.D.2d 1019, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

212 A.D.2d 1019 (Vanderpool v. Coughlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related