Walker v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walker v. Coughlin

202 A.D.2d 1034, 609 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 1034 (Walker 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

Walker v. Coughlin, 202 A.D.2d 1034, 609 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that respondent’s failure to provide petitioner with employee assistance at his disciplinary hearing violated respondent’s rules and regulations and deprived him of due process of law (cf., Matter of Burke v Coughlin, 97 AD2d 862). Petitioner waived his right to an employee assistant by refusing to sign an employee assistant selection form. The failure to select an assistant and proceed without one "was a circumstance of [petitioner’s] own creation and did not amount to a deprivation of due process” (Matter of Bates v Kelly, 152 AD2d 1009; see also, Matter of Peart v Kelly, 134 AD2d 843, lv denied 71 NY2d 801).

The determination of guilt on all charges contained in the two misbehavior reports is supported by substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that respondent’s failure to provide petitioner with employee assistance at his disciplinary hearing violated respondent’s rules and regulations and deprived him of due process of law (cf., Matter of Burke v Coughlin, 97 AD2d 862). Petitioner waived his right to an employee assistant by refusing to sign an employee assistant selection form. The failure to select an assistant and proceed without one "was a circumstance of [petitioner’s] own creation and did not amount to a deprivation of due process” (Matter of Bates v Kelly, 152 AD2d 1009; see also, Matter of Peart v Kelly, 134 AD2d 843, lv denied 71 NY2d 801).

The determination of guilt on all charges contained in the two misbehavior reports is supported by substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 1034, 609 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack