People ex rel. Ferro v. Brann

183 A.D.3d 758

121 N.Y.S.3d 658 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. Shane Ferro, on behalf of Mohamed Pasha, Appellant,

v.Cynthia BRANN, etc., Respondent.

2020–03426

S.C.I. No. 1818/19

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—May 12, 2020

May 13, 2020

Queens Defenders, Forest Hills, N.Y. (Steven Sternberg and Shane Ferro, pro se, of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

(S.C.I. No. 1818/19)

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John B. Latella, J.), dated April 22, 2020. The judgment denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

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

While serving a sentence of imprisonment, Mohamed Pasha contracted the COVID–19 virus. The petitioner subsequently commenced this proceeding in the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking to release Pasha from custody. The court denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Pasha'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 ). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the petitioner has not demonstrated that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to Pasha's medical needs or that Pasha is entitled to immediate release from custody as a remedy for any failure to address his medical needs (see People ex rel. Sandson v. Duncan, 306 A.D.2d 716, 717, 761 N.Y.S.2d 379 ; People ex rel. Kalikow v. Scully, 198 A.D.2d 250, 603 N.Y.S.2d 520 ; see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837–838, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 ; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 )

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the petition and, in effect, dismiss the proceeding.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.