From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cauley v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1996
224 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 5, 1996

Appeal from the Court of Claims (NeMoyer, J.).


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

On June 27, 1988, the claimant, an inmate incarcerated at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility (hereinafter Sing Sing), was assaulted by another inmate, and sustained a severe injury to his right eye. The claimant received immediate attention at the Sing Sing emergency room. Thereafter, within a period of two weeks, the claimant was seen by an emergency room physician at Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, as well as an opthalmologist and two plastic surgeons affiliated with that hospital. On July 11, 1988, the claimant saw the last of those physicians, a plastic surgeon, who recommended "Surgical correction * * * [a]s soon as possible". On July 19, 1988, the operating room was reserved for the claimant's surgery, which was performed on July 28, 1988. The surgical result was, in the surgeon's opinion, "not perfect", because four weeks had elapsed between the time of injury and the operation.

The claimant maintains that the substantial delay in providing him with necessary medical attention and treatment constituted negligence on the part of Sing Sing officials, and that, as a result, he obtained a less-than-optimal result from the surgery, and required further surgical intervention and medical treatment. The trial court concluded that despite the expert testimony of the claimant's medical witnesses that the delay in the surgery was excessive, in the absence of proof that Sing Sing officials were aware of the urgency of the situation, the preponderance of the credible evidence established that they "provided the claimant with prompt and adequate medical care".

"[A] duty of ordinary care is owed by prison authorities to provide for the health and care of their charges" (Gordon v City of New York, 120 A.D.2d 562, affd 70 N.Y.2d 839; see, Matter of Farace v. State of New York, 176 A.D.2d 1228). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the determination of the Court of Claims was supported by the record and should not be disturbed. O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cauley v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 1996
224 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Cauley v. State

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLAS CAULEY, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 106

Citing Cases

Smith v. U.S.

The rule in New York is not inconsistent in any event. New York law holds that the state "owes a duty to use…

Pickett v. County of Orange

The Supreme Court properly determined that, although the Sheriff could not be held liable for the acts or…