People ex rel. Kalikow v. Scully

198 A.D.2d 250, 603 N.Y.S.2d 520
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 1, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 250 (People ex rel. Kalikow v. Scully) 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
People ex rel. Kalikow v. Scully, 198 A.D.2d 250, 603 N.Y.S.2d 520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), dated December 2, 1991, which, after a hearing, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner became a paraplegic when he was shot by the police during the course of one of the robberies for which he is presently incarcerated. He commenced this habeas corpus proceeding to obtain his immediate release from prison, on the ground that the inadequate medical care he received while incarcerated constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions.

The petitioner does not allege that imprisonment itself constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because he is a paraplegic. Rather, he claims that the conditions of his imprisonment (i.e., the lack of adequate medical care) require his immediate release. His allegations, however, do not show that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Thus, he is not entitled to immediate release from custody (see, People ex rel. Hall v LeFevre, 60 NY2d 579). [251]*251While, in some special circumstances, habeas corpus is available to challenge the conditions of confinement, even where immediate discharge is not the appropriate relief (see, People ex rel. Brown v Johnston, 9 NY2d 482), this case does not present the appropriate facts to warrant habeas corpus relief, since the petitioner was afforded relief by the consent decree issued in Milburn v Coughlin (79 Civ 5077 [SD NY, Sept. 27, 1991]) which requires prison officials to provide adequate medical care to inmates at the facility where the petitioner is incarcerated. Thompson, J. P., Miller, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People ex rel. Mischel v. Russell
2025 NY Slip Op 06715 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
People ex rel. Ferro v. Brann
2020 NY Slip Op 2803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
De La Rosa v. State
173 Misc. 2d 1007 (New York State Court of Claims, 1997)
People v. Muro
208 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 A.D.2d 250, 603 N.Y.S.2d 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-kalikow-v-scully-nyappdiv-1993.