From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Muqtadir v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1995
212 A.D.2d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 3, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Wesley and Davis, JJ.


Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed and matter remitted to respondent Superintendent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum:

Petitioner was found guilty, after a Tier III hearing, of several rule violations. We conclude that the finding that he violated inmate rule 113.15 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [vi]) is not supported by substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130) inasmuch as a PIN number is not an "article" within the meaning of that rule. Thus, we modify the determination and grant the petition in part by vacating the finding of guilt with respect to that rule. Because the record does not specify any relation between the penalty imposed and the rule violations, the penalty is vacated and the matter is remitted to respondent Superintendent for imposition of an appropriate penalty on the remaining violations (see, Matter of Brooks v. Coughlin, 182 A.D.2d 1115, 1116).

We have reviewed petitioner's remaining arguments and conclude that they are lacking in merit.


Summaries of

Matter of Muqtadir v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1995
212 A.D.2d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Muqtadir v. Coughlin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SHAKUR MUQTADIR, Petitioner, v. THOMAS A. COUGHLIN, III…

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 443

Citing Cases

Matter of Fedrick v. Coughlin

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ. Determination unanimously modified on the law and…

Matter of Deshields v. Coughlin

Respondents concede, however, that there is no proof that petitioner violated inmate rule 104.11 ( 7 NYCRR…