Matter of Abreu v Parrish

Matter of Matter of Abreu v Parrish 2012 NY Slip Op 08367 Decided on December 6, 2012 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: December 6, 2012
512963

[*1]In the Matter of CARLOS ABREU, Petitioner,

v

N. PARRISH, as Hearing Officer, et al., Respondents.

Calendar Date: October 29, 2012
Before: Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ.


Carlos Abreu, Malone, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany
(Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondents.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner initially commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge determinations of guilt in several prison disciplinary proceedings. Respondents thereafter successfully moved to sever the individual claims and Supreme Court, noting the presence of a substantial evidence question in the matter now before us, transferred the instant proceeding to this Court (see CPLR 7804 [g]).

Petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge a number of prison disciplinary determinations, involving discrete incidents of misconduct, upon a myriad of grounds. Given the obvious potential for confusion, and noting the lack of substantial prejudice to petitioner, we find no clear abuse of discretion in Supreme Court's decision to grant severance and consider the determinations separately (see CPLR 407; Matter of Castro v Fischer, 81 AD3d 1062, 1063 [*2][2011])[FN1]. Further, petitioner has abandoned his challenge to the sole determination at issue in this proceeding by failing to advance any arguments pertaining to it in his brief (see Matter of Barnes v Prack, 92 AD3d 990, 990 [2012]; Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 78 AD3d 1335, 1335 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]).

Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Footnotes

Footnote 1: "CPLR 7804 (g) statutorily empowers us to dispose of all issues in a transferred CPLR article 78 proceeding such as this," including those related to the severance of petitioner's claims (Matter of Vito v Jorling, 197 AD2d 822, 825 n [1993]; see Matter of Desmone v Blum, 99 AD2d 170, 176-177 [1984]).