Banks v. Blyn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banks v. Blyn

72 A.D.2d 512, 421 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13534

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 18, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 512 (Banks v. Blyn) 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.

Bluebook

Banks v. Blyn, 72 A.D.2d 512, 421 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for an order, variously of mandamus and prohibition, against a Supreme Court Justice at Special Term, denied, as is the separate motion for a stay and for consolidation with the pending appeal, and the cross motion to dismiss granted, without costs. The apparent reason that CPLR article 78 is sought to be availed of rather than appellate review is that expedition is desired to prevent dire consequences to petitioner by way of arrest. We find no reason to apprehend that danger and, in any event, the provisions of CPLR 5519 would be available in the appellate process. The extraordinary remedies provided by CPLR article 78 are not to be used as substitutes for appellate review when, as here, the latter would be available and adequate. (See Matter of Russell v Murray, 49 AD2d 772; Siegel, New York Practice, § 558; CPLR 7801, subd 1; 5521; Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac, vol 8, par 7801.06; vol 7, par 5704.04.) Concur&emdash; Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Markewich, Ross and Lynch, JJ.

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

Motion for an order, variously of mandamus and prohibition, against a Supreme Court Justice at Special Term, denied, as is the separate motion for a stay and for consolidation with the pending appeal, and the cross motion to dismiss granted, without costs. The apparent reason that CPLR article 78 is sought to be availed of rather than appellate review is that expedition is desired to prevent dire consequences to petitioner by way of arrest. We find no reason to apprehend that danger and, in any event, the provisions of CPLR 5519 would be available in the appellate process. The extraordinary remedies provided by CPLR article 78 are not to be used as substitutes for appellate review when, as here, the latter would be available and adequate. (See Matter of Russell v Murray, 49 AD2d 772; Siegel, New York Practice, § 558; CPLR 7801, subd 1; 5521; Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac, vol 8, par 7801.06; vol 7, par 5704.04.) Concur&emdash; Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Markewich, Ross and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 512, 421 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-blyn-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack