SHOMO v. ZON (2006)

In this pro se CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), petitioner seeks review of a determination denying his inmate grievance that he has been denied adequate medical care.   Initially, we agree with respondent that the determination “was not ‘made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law’ ” (Matter of Butler v. Town of Throop, 303 A.D.2d 976, 976, 756 N.Y.S.2d 678), and thus Supreme Court erred in transferring the matter to this Court based on a substantial evidence issue (see Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v. Planning Bd. of Town of N. Elba, 238 A.D.2d 93, 96, 668 N.Y.S.2d 774).   Nevertheless, we retain jurisdiction in the interest of judicial economy and dismiss the petition (see CPLR 7804[g] ).

 “In order for a prisoner to prevail on a claim that he has been denied adequate medical care, he must demonstrate that prison officials acted in a manner ‘sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs' ” (Matter of Bryant v. Brunelle, 284 A.D.2d 936, 936, 726 N.Y.S.2d 315;  see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251, reh. denied 429 U.S. 1066, 97 S.Ct. 798, 50 L.Ed.2d 785).   The evidence supports respondent's determination that petitioner's medical needs are being met, and petitioner failed to establish that respondent is deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs of petitioner.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: