Opinion
2012-12-6
In the Matter of Carlos ABREU, Petitioner, v. N. PARRISH, as Hearing Officer, et al., Respondents.
Carlos Abreu, Malone, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondents.
Carlos Abreu, Malone, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondents.
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 ( seeCPLR 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 ( seeCPLR 407; Matter of Castro v. Fischer, 81 A.D.3d 1062, 1063, 916 N.Y.S.2d 329 [2011] ).
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 A.D.3d 990, 990, 937 N.Y.S.2d 472 [2012];Matter of Jackson v. Fischer, 78 A.D.3d 1335, 1335, 909 N.Y.S.2d 681 [2010],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 705, 944 N.E.2d 658 [2011] ).
“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 A.D.2d 822, 825 n., 603 N.Y.S.2d 64 [1993];see Matter of Desmone v. Blum, 99 A.D.2d 170, 176–177, 473 N.Y.S.2d 196 [1984] ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MERCURE, J.P., LAHTINEN, MALONE JR., STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.