Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Roderick McCLAIN, petitioner, v. Joseph A. GROSSO, etc., et al., respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to enjoin Joseph A. Grosso, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, and Richard A. Brown, the Queens County District Attorney, from enforcing an order of that court dated May 26, 2006, in a criminal action entitled People v. McClain, under Indictment No. 955/2005, which directed the petitioner to submit to an HIV test, and application for poor person relief.
ORDERED that the branch of the application which is for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022(b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,
ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the respondents are prohibited from enforcing the order dated May 26, 2006.
Public Health Law § 2781 delineates the conditions for obtaining an order for the performance of an HIV-related test. Pursuant to that section, HIV-related testing is prohibited without the written informed consent of the person to be tested, except as authorized by CPLR 3121 or otherwise specifically permitted by statute (see Matter of Doe v. Connell, 179 A.D.2d 196, 199, 583 N.Y.S.2d 707). Under the circumstances of this case, the respondents lacked specific statutory authority to compel the petitioner to submit to an HIV-related test (see Matter of Garinger, 305 A.D.2d 677, 759 N.Y.S.2d 550; Matter of Donald P. v. Palmieri, 246 A.D.2d 597, 668 N.Y.S.2d 218; Matter of Doe v. Connell, supra ). Since the respondent Joseph A. Grosso exceeded his authority in ordering the petitioner to be tested, the petitioner demonstrated a “clear legal right” to the remedy of prohibition (Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 51, 467 N.Y.S.2d 182, 454 N.E.2d 522; Matter of Donald P. v. Palmieri, supra).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 25, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)