PEOPLE EX REL MISCHEL v. RUSSELL (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Maurice Dean Williams, J.), dated July 1, 2025.  The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

In 2019, Shamdai Arjun was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 22 years to life.  While incarcerated, Arjun was diagnosed with recurring cervical cancer.  The petitioner commenced this proceeding on behalf of Arjun for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking the release of Arjun from custody at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility.  In a judgment dated July 1, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.  The petitioner appeals.

Habeas corpus does not lie unless the appropriate relief is immediate release from restraint or imprisonment (see People ex rel. Lucien v. Superintendent, Fishkill Corr. Facility, N.Y.S. DOCCS, 190 A.D.3d 863, 865, 140 N.Y.S.3d 547;  People ex rel. Tse v. Barometre, 188 A.D.3d 714, 714–715, 131 N.Y.S.3d 896).  Generally, habeas corpus does not lie where a petitioner seeks only to challenge the conditions of confinement, and does not challenge the fact of confinement itself (see People ex rel. Kalikow v. Scully, 198 A.D.2d 250, 250–251, 603 N.Y.S.2d 520).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Arjun's imprisonment is illegal (see CPLR 7002[a];  7010[a];  People ex rel. DeLia v. Munsey, 26 N.Y.3d 124, 127–128, 20 N.Y.S.3d 304, 41 N.E.3d 1119;  People ex rel. Kielly v. Russell, 237 A.D.3d 1217, 1217, 231 N.Y.S.3d 631).  Contrary to the petitioner's contention, he has not demonstrated that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to Arjun's medical needs or that Arjun is entitled to immediate release from custody as a remedy for any failure to address her medical needs (see People v. Brann, 183 A.D.3d 758, 758, 121 N.Y.S.3d 658;  People ex rel. Kalikow v. Scully, 198 A.D.2d at 250–251, 603 N.Y.S.2d 520).  To the extent the petitioner contends that Arjun's lawful sentence became grossly excessive due to her cancer diagnosis, the petitioner has not made the requisite showing that the sentence is “so grossly disproportionate to the offense[ ] [Arjun] committed as to amount to an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment” (People v. Ortiz, 64 N.Y.2d 997, 999, 489 N.Y.S.2d 46, 478 N.E.2d 187;  see People v. Brathwaite, 263 A.D.2d 89, 92, 703 N.Y.S.2d 191).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

DILLON, J.P., GENOVESI, GOLIA and HOM, JJ., concur.