IN RE: Echo Westley DIXON

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

IN RE: Echo Westley DIXON, Petitioner, v. Echo Westley DIXON, Petitioner

91

Decided: February 01, 2019

PRESENT:  SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ. ECHO WESTLEY DIXON, PETITIONER PRO SE. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum:  Petitioner commenced this proceeding, which includes, inter alia, a cause of action seeking to annul the determination of Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (respondent), made after a tier III hearing, that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.24 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][14][xiv] [drug use] ).  Supreme Court entered an order in November 2017 dismissing all of the other causes of action in the petition, and entered a further order in December 2017 denying petitioner's motion for leave to reargue the November order.  Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with respect to those orders and sought review in the Court of Appeals, which issued an order transferring that appeal to this Court (Dixon v. Cuomo, 30 N.Y.3d 1086, 1086, 69 N.Y.S.3d 854, 92 N.E.3d 1244 [2018] ), but petitioner has not filed a record or taken any steps to perfect that appeal in this Court.  Thereafter, Supreme Court, pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), transferred that part of the petition seeking review of the inmate disciplinary proceeding to this Court.

In his brief to this Court, however, petitioner challenges only the dismissal of the other causes of action.  Inasmuch as this transferred proceeding concerns only the determination that petitioner violated the inmate rule at issue, and petitioner does not raise any arguments with respect thereto in his brief to this Court, his “challenge to [that] determination is deemed abandoned” (Matter of Lamage v. Bezio, 74 A.D.3d 1676, 1676, 906 N.Y.S.2d 110 [3d Dept. 2010];  see Matter of Alvarez v. Fischer, 94 A.D.3d 1404, 1405, 942 N.Y.S.2d 711 [4th Dept. 2012] ), and the proceeding must be dismissed.