Abrahams v. DiBlasi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abrahams v. DiBlasi

293 A.D.2d 530, 739 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3520

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 8, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the Supreme Court from continuing contempt proceedings in an action entitled Caiola v AllCity Ins. Co., and a proceeding entitled Matter of Parkside Ltd. Liab. Co., both pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under Index Nos. 1333/96 and 8095/99, respectively.

Motion by the respondent John P. DiBlasi to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

-Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

[531] “Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the Supreme Court from continuing contempt proceedings in an action entitled Caiola v AllCity Ins. Co., and a proceeding entitled Matter of Parkside Ltd. Liab. Co., both pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under Index Nos. 1333/96 and 8095/99, respectively.

Motion by the respondent John P. DiBlasi to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

-Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

[531] “Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Abrahams v. DiBlasi, 293 A.D.2d 530, 739 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

293 A.D.2d 530 (Abrahams v. DiBlasi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related