Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Pabon v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 21, 2005

16 A.D.3d 589; 790 N.Y.S.2d 879; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3046

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Rippy v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Thomas v. Straub (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
DeSilva v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal Office of Rent Administration (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Matter of Fernandez v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Williams v. Appeals Board of Administrative Adjudication Bureau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Cepeda v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, William E. Phillips, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, dated September 14, 2003, which affirmed a determination of a hearing officer, made after a Tier II disciplinary hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules, and imposing a penalty.

*590Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

This proceeding was improperly transferred to this Court by the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) (see Thurman v Holahan, 123 AD2d 687 [1986]). However, we will retain jurisdiction and decide this case on the merits (see Matter of Giano v Coughlin, 162 AD2d 986 [1990]; Matter of Portugal v Webb, 91 AD2d 997, 998 [1983]).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there is no evidence in the record that the hearing officer who made the disciplinary determination was biased against him (see Matter of Johnson v Selsky, 14 AD3d 755 [2005]; Matter of Martinez v Scully, 194 AD2d 679 [1993]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions were not raised upon the administrative appeal and therefore are unpreserved for judicial review. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.