Watson v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watson v. Coughlin

208 A.D.2d 637, 618 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9516

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 637 (Watson 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

Watson v. Coughlin, 208 A.D.2d 637, 618 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondent’s determination dated December 10, 1992, which found the petitioner guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), dated April 13, 1993, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Hearing Officer permissibly declined to call a certain witness requested by the petitioner during the Tier III hearing (see, Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 147; see also, Matter of Amaker v Coughlin, 197 AD2d 886).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Matter of Comfort v Irvin, 197 AD2d 907; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1103, 1104; Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 999, 1000). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondent’s determination dated December 10, 1992, which found the petitioner guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), dated April 13, 1993, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Hearing Officer permissibly declined to call a certain witness requested by the petitioner during the Tier III hearing (see, Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 147; see also, Matter of Amaker v Coughlin, 197 AD2d 886).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Matter of Comfort v Irvin, 197 AD2d 907; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1103, 1104; Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 999, 1000). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 637, 618 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack