Moore v. Leonardo

185 A.D.2d 489, 586 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8966
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 16, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 489 (Moore v. Leonardo) 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
Moore v. Leonardo, 185 A.D.2d 489, 586 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Berke, J.), entered September 23, [490]*4901991 in Washington County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to compel respondents to provide petitioner with adequate medical treatment.

Petitioner, an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County, instituted this CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel medical care and treatment above and beyond that which he is presently receiving, which he deems inadequate. In the alternative, petitioner seeks his release from imprisonment.

It appears that petitioner was seen by the facility’s medical staff approximately 23 times between September 4, 1990 and August 5, 1991. During this period he was given blood, urine and stool analysis tests and X rays, all of which showed no abnormalities. He was diagnosed as having a spastic colon with symptoms of abdominal pain, cramps, nausea and diarrhea, and various medicines were prescribed from time to time. Based on the diagnosis and treatment, petitioner has failed to show that respondents were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need (see, Estelle v Gamble, 429 US 97; Matter of Stephens v Ward, 63 AD2d 798), which is the burden that petitioner must meet in order to succeed on his claim (see, Matter of Ronson v Commissioner of Correction, State of N. Y., 112 AD2d 488, 489). His failure to meet that burden required dismissal of the petition and, therefore, we affirm Supreme Court’s judgment.

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mahoney and Harvey, 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

Related

Bailey v. Goord
174 Misc. 2d 632 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
De La Rosa v. State
173 Misc. 2d 1007 (New York State Court of Claims, 1997)
Singh v. Eagen
236 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 A.D.2d 489, 586 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-leonardo-nyappdiv-1992.