Chiarello v. Vincent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chiarello v. Vincent

51 A.D.2d 1015, 381 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11787

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1015 (Chiarello v. Vincent) 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

Chiarello v. Vincent, 51 A.D.2d 1015, 381 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent to relocate petitioner to a certain cellblock within the facility in order to alleviate his respiratory condition, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated March 13, 1975, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition. Judgment modified, on the facts, by deleting therefrom the provision dismissing the petition and by substituting therefor provisions (1) denying petitioner’s request that he be relocated to J-block and (2) requiring respondent to reoffer petitioner a transfer to E-block or F-block. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner has been offered a transfer to E-block and F-block, each of which, in accordance with the physicians’ recommendations, provides more distance from a radiator than does his present cell location. Petitioner’s assertion that only J-block, an honor and minimum security block, provides conditions which will alleviate his condition, was not substantiated. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, 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 compel respondent to relocate petitioner to a certain cellblock within the facility in order to alleviate his respiratory condition, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated March 13, 1975, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition. Judgment modified, on the facts, by deleting therefrom the provision dismissing the petition and by substituting therefor provisions (1) denying petitioner’s request that he be relocated to J-block and (2) requiring respondent to reoffer petitioner a transfer to E-block or F-block. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner has been offered a transfer to E-block and F-block, each of which, in accordance with the physicians’ recommendations, provides more distance from a radiator than does his present cell location. Petitioner’s assertion that only J-block, an honor and minimum security block, provides conditions which will alleviate his condition, was not substantiated. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1015, 381 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiarello-v-vincent-nyappdiv-1976.