The New York Appellate Division has upheld the suspension of a pharmacist's license in a case involving allegations of theft of controlled substances. The ruling affects Anna A. Jabbour, who was reported for professional misconduct by her employer. This decision is significant as it highlights the legal processes surrounding professional discipline in the state of New York.

In the case, titled Matter of Jabbour v. New York State Board of Regents (CV-25-0241), the court ruled on July 30, 2026, after Jabbour sought to annul a consent order that led to her license suspension. The court's decision reflects the legal standards for professional conduct and the responsibilities of licensed professionals in New York.

Background

Anna A. Jabbour was a licensed pharmacist in New York when her employer reported her for theft of controlled substances in August 2021. Following this report, the New York State Education Department's Office of Professional Discipline (OPD) initiated an investigation and charged her with professional misconduct.

In May 2022, instead of going through a hearing, the OPD offered Jabbour a settlement. After negotiations, her attorney communicated her acceptance of the offer in December 2022 and February 2023. The case was then reassigned, and a consent order application was drafted and signed by Jabbour and her attorney in May 2024. The Board of Regents approved this application in October 2024.

The Ruling

In its ruling, the court dismissed Jabbour's petition to annul the consent order. The judges noted that Jabbour could not be aggrieved by an order to which she had consented. The court stated, “Petitioner cannot be aggrieved by an order to which she consented, and therefore a proceeding to annul that order does not lie.” This decision was made by a panel of judges including Clark, J.P., Aarons, Ceresia, McShan, and Powers.

Jabbour's attorney attempted to amend the specification of misconduct to disorderly conduct to help preserve her reputation. However, the court found that Jabbour had not properly revoked her consent to the consent order before it was approved by the Board. The court also noted that she had not challenged the OPD Director's denial of her reconsideration application, which would have been the appropriate legal route to take.

Impact

The ruling underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures when dealing with professional misconduct cases. It highlights that licensed professionals must be aware of the implications of consent orders and that revoking consent must be done correctly and timely. This case may serve as a precedent for future cases involving consent orders in professional licensing matters.

Going forward, this ruling may affect other professionals facing similar disciplinary actions. It reinforces the idea that once a consent order is signed and accepted by the relevant authorities, it can be challenging to overturn unless proper legal procedures are followed.

What's Next

Jabbour has filed a second request for reconsideration, which is still pending. If this request is denied, she may pursue another CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the denial. This case remains a critical example of the legal standards and processes involved in professional discipline in New York.