De Flumer v. Dalsheim
| Decision Date | 15 August 1986 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Carl De FLUMER, Respondent, v. Stephen DALSHEIM, Superintendent, Downstate Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Maryellen Weinberg and Joseph F. Wagner, of counsel), for appellants.
Robert N. Isseks, Middletown, for respondent.
Before LAZER, J.P., and MANGANO, BROWN and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the appellants to issue the petitioner metal frame glasses instead of plastic frame glasses, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Nicolai, J.), entered June 12, 1984, which, inter alia, granted the petition.
Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding dismissed on the merits.
The gravamen of the petition herein is that the appellants failed to provide the petitioner with "necessary medical attention and treatment" by refusing to supply him with metal frame glasses instead of plastic frame glasses.
It is well established that 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" (Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251; reh. denied 429 U.S. 1066, 97 S.Ct. 798, 50 L.Ed.2d 785; see, Matter of Stephens v. Ward, 63 A.D.2d 798, 799, 404 N.Y.S.2d 930).
The record, including the affidavit of the prison optometrist who prescribed the plastic frame glasses to the petitioner, indicates that the plastic frame glasses were medically suited for the petitioner's visual problems, the glasses could be adjusted at the petitioner's request, and metal frame glasses were not necessary or medically indicated.
Without explanation, Special Term improperly substituted its judgment for that of the appellants by directing that the petitioner be given metal frame glasses rather than plastic frame glasses (see, Matter of Denise R. v. Lavine, 39 N.Y.2d 279, 283, 383 N.Y.S.2d 568, 347 N.E.2d 893). Under those circumstances, the proceeding should have been dismissed (see, Matter of Stephens v. Ward, supra).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ennis v. Dasovick
...opportunity to read and write ... violates his right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment"]; De Flumer v. Dalsheim, 122 A.D.2d 872, 873, 505 N.Y.S.2d 919, 920 (1986) [a claim for metal frame glasses instead of plastic frame glasses should have been dismissed where prison optome......
-
Matter of Bryant v. Brunelle
...(Estelle v Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, reh denied 429 U.S. 1066; see, Matter of Singh v Eagen, 236 A.D.2d 654, 654-655; Matter of De Flumer v Dalsheim, 122 A.D.2d 872, 873, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 612; Matter of Ronson v Commissioner of Correction, 112 A.D.2d 488, 489; Matter of Stephens v Ward, ......
-
Espinal v. Coughlin
...to his medical needs (see, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251; Matter of De Flumer v. Dalsheim, 122 A.D.2d 872, 873, 505 N.Y.S.2d 919; Matter of Ronson v. Commr. of Correction, 112 A.D.2d 488, 489, 491 N.Y.S.2d 209). Nor is there anything in the record wh......
-
DeFlumer v. Dalsheim
...N.Y.2d 612, 503 N.E.2d 123 In Matter of DeFlumer (Carl) v. Dalsheim (Stephen) NO. 1085 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK Nov 18, 1986 122 A.D.2d 872, 505 N.Y.S.2d 919 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR Denied. ...