Chambers v. Coughlin
| Decision Date | 12 June 1980 |
| Citation | 429 N.Y.S.2d 74,76 A.D.2d 980 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Leval CHAMBERS et al., Respondents, v. Thomas COUGHLIN, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Frederick R. Walsh, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellants.
Lanny E. Walter, Albany, for respondents.
Before SWEENEY, J. P., and STALEY, MAIN, MIKOLL and HERLIHY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 20, 1980 in Washington County, which granted petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to direct respondents to afford petitioners visitation privileges enjoyed by the general population at the Great Meadow Correctional Facility.
On May 31, 1979, respondent Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility advised the inmate population of the facility that a restricted visiting area had been constructed in the visiting room which would be a non-contact visiting area. This restricted visiting area consisted of small cubicles, the upper walls of which were constructed of plexiglass. The inmates were further advised that effective June 1, 1979, any inmate reported for possession of contraband from an outside source may be subjected to disciplinary action by having his visiting privileges limited to the restricted visiting area.
Petitioners, all inmates at the Great Meadow Correctional Facility, were subsequently found, after superintendent proceedings, to have violated institutional rules by being in possession of contraband in the form of marijuana. As punishment for violating the institutional rules, each petitioner was placed under keep-lock or assigned to the special housing unit; incurred loss of good time varying from 60 to 90 days; loss of commissary privileges during the period that they were under keep-lock or in the special housing unit; and, in addition, were subjected to visits in the restricted visiting area with no contact visits for periods ranging from 180 days to 270 days.
After exhausting the administrative remedies available to them, petitioners commenced this proceeding under CPLR article 78. Special Term, upon a finding that there was no evidence showing that the contraband found in petitioners' possession was the result of contact visitation, determined that the imposition of restricted visitation was an abuse of discretion and directed that petitioners be afforded forthwith the rights of contact visitation in common with the inmates in the general population.
Subdivision 2 of section 18 of the Correction Law grants to the superintendent of a correctional facility broad supervisory and managerial authority, so long as such authority is exercised in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Correction. The rules and regulations of the Commissioner of Correction are set forth in title 7 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York published pursuant to sections 102 through 106 of the Executive Law.
Section 301.1 of part 301 of title 7, entitled "Minimum Standards" provides:
The provisions of this Part shall apply as minimum requirements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kozlowski v. Coughlin, 81 Civ. 5886(CES)
...of visitation privileges to inmates for disciplinary purposes, Directive 4403 notwithstanding. Id.;8see also Chambers v. Coughlin, 76 App.Div.2d 980, 429 N.Y.S.2d 74 (1980). Nor is Directive 4403 itself inconsistent with the conclusion that visitation is a state created liberty interest in ......
-
Jones v. Smith
...intended to apply to an individual inmate since it does not have the effect of a filed regulation (see Matter of Leval Chambers v. Coughlin, 76 A.D.2d 980, at p. 981, 429 N.Y.S.2d 74 but compare to Matter of Johnson v. Smith, 83 A.D.2d 721, 442 N.Y.S.2d 648). This Court believes that the co......
-
Allen v. Blum
...Serv., 40 A.D.2d 867, 338 N.Y.S.2d 162). An administrative agency is bound by its own rules and regulations ( Mtr. of Chambers v. Coughlin, 76 A.D.2d 980, 981, 429 N.Y.S.2d 74). Under the practice as followed, there was and is palpably no inquiry or investigation prior to the service of Not......
-
Regan v. Coughlin
... ... Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321), it must be upheld except insofar as it attempted to restrict petitioner's future visitation, a punishment which the Attorney-General concedes was effectively proscribed by this court's decision in Matter of Chambers v. Coughlin, 76 A.D.2d 980, 429 N.Y.S.2d 74 ... Determination modified, by annulling so much thereof as imposed a punishment of 80 days of ... ...