Smith v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Sullivan

118 A.D.2d 862, 500 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54716

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.2d 862 (Smith v. Sullivan) 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

Smith v. Sullivan, 118 A.D.2d 862, 500 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents to correct certain unsanitary conditions and to provide the petitioner with suitable employment and rehabilitative opportunities, improperly designated as an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cerrato, J.), entered February 3, 1984, which, inter alia, dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the petitioner has denominated this proceeding as one for a writ of habeas corpus, his only challenge is to certain conditions of his incarceration, and not to the validity of his detainment. This matter shall therefore be treated as a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (cf. CPLR 103 [c]).

The record indicates that some of the petitioner’s complaints have already been remedied. His allegations with respect to the remaining conditions complained of are insufficient to warrant judicial relief. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, 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 correct certain unsanitary conditions and to provide the petitioner with suitable employment and rehabilitative opportunities, improperly designated as an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cerrato, J.), entered February 3, 1984, which, inter alia, dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the petitioner has denominated this proceeding as one for a writ of habeas corpus, his only challenge is to certain conditions of his incarceration, and not to the validity of his detainment. This matter shall therefore be treated as a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (cf. CPLR 103 [c]).

The record indicates that some of the petitioner’s complaints have already been remedied. His allegations with respect to the remaining conditions complained of are insufficient to warrant judicial relief. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 862, 500 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1986.