Woods v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woods v. Coughlin

154 A.D.2d 541, 546 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12745

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 541 (Woods 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

Woods v. Coughlin, 154 A.D.2d 541, 546 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In (1) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated October 1, 1985, and (2) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated October 7, 1985, each of which was made after a Tier III Superintendent’s hearing and each of which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and imposed punishment, the petitioner appeals from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dickinson, J.), both dated July 16, 1988, which dismissed the petitions.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Upon this record, we find no violation of the petitioner’s due process rights or his rights under the applicable agency regulations (see, 7 NYCRR 253.5 [a]; 251-4.1 [a]; 251-4.2). In particular, we reject the petitioner’s claim that he received inadequate employee assistance. Inasmuch as the petitioner permitted another inmate to select his assistant from the list provided by the respondent and then signed the inmate assistance form after meeting with the assigned assistant, the petitioner has waived his claim. In any event, the record reveals that the assistant adequately performed his duties in preparing the petitioner’s defense (see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.2).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

— In (1) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated October 1, 1985, and (2) a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated October 7, 1985, each of which was made after a Tier III Superintendent’s hearing and each of which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and imposed punishment, the petitioner appeals from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dickinson, J.), both dated July 16, 1988, which dismissed the petitions.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Upon this record, we find no violation of the petitioner’s due process rights or his rights under the applicable agency regulations (see, 7 NYCRR 253.5 [a]; 251-4.1 [a]; 251-4.2). In particular, we reject the petitioner’s claim that he received inadequate employee assistance. Inasmuch as the petitioner permitted another inmate to select his assistant from the list provided by the respondent and then signed the inmate assistance form after meeting with the assigned assistant, the petitioner has waived his claim. In any event, the record reveals that the assistant adequately performed his duties in preparing the petitioner’s defense (see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.2).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 541, 546 N.Y.S.2d 163, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack