Hodge v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hodge v. State

290 A.D.2d 734, 735 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 403

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 17, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Lebous, J.), entered September 29, 2000, upon a decision of the court following a bifurcated trial on the issue of liability, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Claimant, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, filed a claim against the State alleging negligent disclosure of confidential medical information. At issue on this appeal is the propriety of a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the claim after a trial. While it is true that an inmate has a general right to privacy in receiving medical care in a State correctional facility (see, 9 NYCRR 7651.26 [a] [7]; see generally, Matter of Raqiyb v Eagen, 277 AD2d 528, 529), as well as a general right to “privacy and confidentiality of all [treatment] records” (9 NYCRR 7651.26 [a] [8]), claimant offered no competent proof at trial that these rights were actually violated by any employee or procedure of Shawangunk Correctional Facility. Accordingly, his claim was properly dismissed.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Lebous, J.), entered September 29, 2000, upon a decision of the court following a bifurcated trial on the issue of liability, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Claimant, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, filed a claim against the State alleging negligent disclosure of confidential medical information. At issue on this appeal is the propriety of a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the claim after a trial. While it is true that an inmate has a general right to privacy in receiving medical care in a State correctional facility (see, 9 NYCRR 7651.26 [a] [7]; see generally, Matter of Raqiyb v Eagen, 277 AD2d 528, 529), as well as a general right to “privacy and confidentiality of all [treatment] records” (9 NYCRR 7651.26 [a] [8]), claimant offered no competent proof at trial that these rights were actually violated by any employee or procedure of Shawangunk Correctional Facility. Accordingly, his claim was properly dismissed.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Hodge v. State, 290 A.D.2d 734, 735 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

290 A.D.2d 734 (Hodge v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related