From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 31, 1991
178 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 31, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County.


The record fails to support petitioner's claim that the employee assistance he received was inadequate. The assistant did all that was possible with respect to the documents and witnesses requested by petitioner and, in any event, petitioner has not demonstrated any prejudice due to the assistant's failure to deliver certain documents allegedly requested by petitioner (see, Matter of Serrano v Coughlin, 152 A.D.2d 790). Petitioner's further arguments on this point have been considered and rejected as being without merit. Likewise unavailing is the claim that the hearing was not conducted in a timely fashion. The hearing was commenced within seven days of petitioner's restrictive confinement as required by 7 N.Y.CRR 251-5.1 (a) (see, Matter of Afrika v Edwards, 160 A.D.2d 1212); in any event, an extension was timely requested and granted prior to the hearing (see, Matter of Agosto v Coughlin, 153 A.D.2d 1008). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and reject them as either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Martin v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 31, 1991
178 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Martin v. Coughlin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN MARTIN, Petitioner, v. THOMAS A. COUGHLIN III, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 31, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

In re Ventimiglia

Similarly, many of the witnesses who petitioner wished to call either refused to testify or could not be…