From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hodge v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 17, 2002
290 A.D.2d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

88344

January 17, 2002.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Lebous, J.), entered September 29, 2000, upon a decision of the court following a bifurcated trial on the issue of liability, which granted the State's motion to dismiss the claim.

Martin Hodge, Ossining, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and, Carpinello, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Claimant, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, filed a claim against the State alleging negligent disclosure of confidential medical information. At issue on this appeal is the propriety of a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the claim after a trial. While it is true that an inmate has a general right to privacy in receiving medical care in a State correctional facility (see, 9 NYCRR 7651.26[a][7]; see generally, Matter of Raqiyb v. Eagen, 277 A.D.2d 528, 529), as well as a general right to "privacy and confidentiality of all [treatment] records" ( 9 NYCRR 7651.26[a][8]), claimant offered no competent proof at trial that these rights were actually violated by any employee or procedure of Shawangunk Correctional Facility. Accordingly, his claim was properly dismissed.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Spain, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Hodge v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 17, 2002
290 A.D.2d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Hodge v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN HODGE, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 17, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
735 N.Y.S.2d 836

Citing Cases

Tatta v. State

Further, we agree with the Court of Claims that, under the particular facts of this case, claimant placed his…