Matter of Thompson v. Brann
This text of Matter of Thompson v. Brann (Matter of Thompson v. Brann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Thompson v Brann
2026 NY Slip Op 03679
June 10, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Eon Thompson, appellant,
v
Cynthia Brann, etc., et al., respondents.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on June 10, 2026
2024-04979, (Index No. 1718/20)
Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Barry E. Warhit
Carl J. Landicino, JJ.
Eon Thompson, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Amy McCamphill and Jonathan Schoepp-Wong of counsel), for respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction to personally conduct the petitioner's disciplinary hearing, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Tracy Catapano-Fox, J.), entered September 15, 2022. The order and judgment granted the respondents' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner, an employee of the New York City Department of Correction (hereinafter DOC), commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the Commissioner of the DOC to personally conduct a disciplinary hearing on charges made against the petitioner. The respondents moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss petition. The Supreme Court granted the respondents' motion and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.
The sole contention made by the petitioner in his appellate brief is not properly before this Court, as it is raised for the first time on appeal (see Restivo v Lineros, 235 AD3d 915, 916).
Accordingly, we affirm the order and judgment.
IANNACCI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matter of Thompson v. Brann, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-thompson-v-brann-nyappdiv-2026.