Kelley v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kelley v. Coughlin

221 A.D.2d 532, 634 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11853

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 532 (Kelley v. Coughlin) 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

Kelley v. Coughlin, 221 A.D.2d 532, 634 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents to provide the petitioner with adequate medical care at Green Haven Correctional Facility, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), entered May 9, 1994, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding to compel the respondents to provide him with adequate medical care at Green Haven Correctional Facility (hereinafter Green Haven). The respondents moved to dismiss the proceeding, inter alia, on the ground that Green Haven was providing the petitioner with adequate medical care.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, the respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition was timely (see, CPLR 7804 [c], [f|; see also, Matter of New York State Bldrs. Assn, v State of New York, 98 Misc 2d 1045, 1048). Moreover, the respondents were not "deliberately indifferent” (People ex rel. Hall v LeFevre, 60 NY2d 579) to the petitioner’s medical needs. For example, medical appointments had been scheduled for the petitioner and were rescheduled upon his return from the Attica Correctional Facility (hereinafter Attica). The petitioner had spent time in both the Green Haven and Attica infirmaries where his medical needs and questions were addressed on a [533]*533daily basis. The petitioner had a consultation with an ear, nose, and throat specialist in November 1993, and Green Haven’s Health Service Director provided him with medical documentation and explained his medical records to him. In view of these efforts by the respondents, the court should have granted the motion to dismiss the petition.

In view of the foregoing, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 the respondents to provide the petitioner with adequate medical care at Green Haven Correctional Facility, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), entered May 9, 1994, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding to compel the respondents to provide him with adequate medical care at Green Haven Correctional Facility (hereinafter Green Haven). The respondents moved to dismiss the proceeding, inter alia, on the ground that Green Haven was providing the petitioner with adequate medical care.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, the respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition was timely (see, CPLR 7804 [c], [f|; see also, Matter of New York State Bldrs. Assn, v State of New York, 98 Misc 2d 1045, 1048). Moreover, the respondents were not "deliberately indifferent” (People ex rel. Hall v LeFevre, 60 NY2d 579) to the petitioner’s medical needs. For example, medical appointments had been scheduled for the petitioner and were rescheduled upon his return from the Attica Correctional Facility (hereinafter Attica). The petitioner had spent time in both the Green Haven and Attica infirmaries where his medical needs and questions were addressed on a [533]*533daily basis. The petitioner had a consultation with an ear, nose, and throat specialist in November 1993, and Green Haven’s Health Service Director provided him with medical documentation and explained his medical records to him. In view of these efforts by the respondents, the court should have granted the motion to dismiss the petition.

In view of the foregoing, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 532, 634 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelley-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack