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: Michael LOMBARD, respondent, v. Dennis J. BRESLIN, etc., appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility dated May 4, 2004, which denied the petitioner's request for an eye examination at the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated March 30, 2005, which granted the petition and denied the motion of the Superintendent of the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility to dismiss the petition.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the determination is confirmed, the motion is granted, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding to compel the appellant to transport him for an eye examination at the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary. The appellant moved to dismiss the proceeding, inter alia, on the ground that the requested relief was not medically indicated. The Supreme Court granted the petition and denied the motion. We reverse.
The record indicates that the relief requested in the petition was not medically indicated. Accordingly, the appellant's determination was not unreasonable or without a basis in law (see Matter of Ehlinger v. DeBuono, 249 A.D.2d 303, 670 N.Y.S.2d 357). Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the appellant acted in a manner demonstrating a deliberate indifference to the petitioner's serious medical needs (see Matter of Kelley v. Coughlin, 221 A.D.2d 532, 634 N.Y.S.2d 394; Matter of De Flumer v. Dalsheim, 122 A.D.2d 872, 505 N.Y.S.2d 919).
Accordingly, the proceeding should have been dismissed.
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: April 18, 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)