The state Attorney General’s office is asking the state Supreme Court to dismiss an Article 78 lawsuit filed by a former city resident who is trying to avoid arrest on bench warrants that have been issued for him.

Patrick Dhondt, now of Newark, N.Y., filed suit against Judge George Panebianco and Judge John LaMancuso, both of Jamestown City Court, asking the court to vacate or delay bench warrants issued due to previous failures to appear in court. Dhondt claims motions he has made in court haven’t been decided and asked Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon to compel orders to Dhondt can appeal them if he chooses. Attorney Deena Mueller-Funke of the state Attorney General’s office in Buffalo recently filed a memorandum of law in the case on behalf of Panebianco and LaMancuso asking Hanlon to dismiss the suit due to improper service, because all of Dhondt’s arguments are moot and some are unripe for judicial decision, and because Dhondt has failed to state a claim.

Mueller-Funke argued that Dhondt has received what he wanted from the City Court, namely a signed order from Judge Panebianco on Dhondt’s pro se motions. And, the Attorney General’s representative argued it was unreasonable for Dhondt to have expected Panebianco to act on Dhondt’s motions in less than 30 and seven days, respectively, since motions in civil court have up to 60 days for a judge to act. Any lack of an order on motions made in February or March are not yet ripe for Supreme Court review, Mueller-Funke said.

In a written decision filed April 14, Panebianco noted there are seven open dockets involving Dhondt in Jamestown City Court that included an attachment showing what Panebianco termed a litany of charges filed and failures to appear in court. A 2019 docket included charges of false inspection certificate, third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation, license plate violation: improper plates, operating an unregistered vehicle and no license, with Dhondt pleading guilty to the false inspection certificate violation. After five missed court dates, the court deemed Dhondt a persistent absconder, followed by two more missed court appearances. Dhondt appeared three years after his first missed court date in the case and was sentenced to two years of probation. He was arraigned eight months later on a violation of probation, followed by three more missed court dates through March 2024. A 2022 docket included charges of fourth-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, second-degree criminal use of drug paraphernalia and second-degree obstructing governmental administration, with Dhondt pleading guilty to the seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance charge. The court history is the same as the 2019 charges. Both cases remain open as violation of probation cases. A 2022 docket lists charges of third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation, operating without insurance, illegal signal, a windshield tint violation, unregistered vehicle and operating without inspection, to which Dhondt pleaded guilty to aggravated unlicensed operation. He was given his plea in March 2023 after three missed court appearances, with the case remaining open as a violation of probation.

In September 2023, Dhondt was charged with seven vehicle and traffic law violations, all of which remain open, though a jury trial was scheduled for June 2025. Dhondt didn’t appear in court, one of five missed court appearances, followed by traffic citations in April 2023 and May 2023. Dhondt didn’t appear at five scheduled court appearances that included the June 2025 scheduled jury trial. January 2024 brought a charge of second-degree criminal impersonation, a case that remains open after five missed court dates that included the June 2025 trial date.

“It is clear beyond question that this defendant has had no respect for the court system and the adjudication of his charges,” Panebianco wrote in his decision. “The defendant has missed so many court appearances that the current applications are self-serving and disingenuous. However, this order will attempt to address the main issues raised in the motions by the defendant as they relate to each of the above files.”

Dhondt argues that he has medical conditions that make traveling from Newark to Jamestown difficult, though he lived in Jamestown through at least February 2025, when he was charged after police allege seeing Dhondt jump from a south side home’s window after responding to a burglary in process call. Dhondt was charged with second-degree burglary and fourth-degree criminal mischief in that incident.

Panebianco wrote in his decision there was no evidence submitted in a May 19 fax from Dhondt to Jamestown City Court from an after-visit summary at his final set of medical appointments saying Dhondt was medically unable to travel. On May 20, Dhondt failed to appear for his violation of probation court hearing and a bench warrant was issued. Two more medical issues were presented in May and June – each the day of or the day before a court date – before Dhondt faxed a motion to City Court on June 24, the day before his jury trial was scheduled, asking for a stay of the proceedings and a vacatur of any bench warrant. Panebianco said the fax didn’t contain any medical evidence supporting his application.

“The court finds that the defendant’s persistent non-appearances have more to do with his being a willful and persistent absconder than any medical condition that he now alleges,” Panebianco wrote. “The court also finds that the multitude of submissions are dilatory, unpersuasive and lack merit. The defendant has requested other relief, but the court finds these requests to be ancillary, unsupported and most likely the product of artificial intelligence. Therefore those requests are also denied. … The bench warrants remain active, and the court looks forward to addressing the charges on the merits once the defendant avails himself of Jamestown City Court jurisdiction.”

An order to show cause indicates the Attorney General’s office is to be in state Supreme Court on Monday to explain why Hanlon should not grant Dhondt’s motions, though Mueller said in her filing that if Hanlon doesn’t dismiss Dhondt’s filing that the Attorney General’s office is asking for more time to craft its answers. The Order to Show Cause did not include Dhondt’s request of Hanlon to issue a stay on the bench warrants issued by City Court, prompting Dhondt to file an appeal with the Fourth Department Appellate Division Court of Appeals asking the appeals court grant a motion preventing execution of bench warrants filed by Jamestown City Court until after the April 27 hearing “for the limited purpose of preserving petitioner-appellant’s ability to appear and be heard on the return date of the underlying CPLR Article 78 proceeding and to prevent the requested review from being rendered academic before that hearing occurs.”

Through Thursday, the Appellate Division hasn’t ruled on Dhondt’s appeal.