Beecher v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beecher v. Brown

192 A.D.2d 495, 597 N.Y.S.2d 36

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

DecidedApril 29, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 495 (Beecher v. Brown) 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

Beecher v. Brown, 192 A.D.2d 495, 597 N.Y.S.2d 36 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered September 18, 1992, which, in a proceeding, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to restrain respondents from continuing pending disciplinary proceedings against petitioners, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, as premature, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against petitioners, since, instead of cooperating as witnesses with representatives of the Kings County District Attorney’s office, who were investigating a violent incident, which resulted in two arrests, they asserted their privilege against self-incrimination.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition was properly denied because petitioners can institute proceedings in the event of an adverse administrative determination (McGillicuddy v Monaghan, 280 App Div 144, 145; Matter of Askinazi v Police Dept., 25 AD2d 429). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered September 18, 1992, which, in a proceeding, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to restrain respondents from continuing pending disciplinary proceedings against petitioners, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, as premature, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against petitioners, since, instead of cooperating as witnesses with representatives of the Kings County District Attorney’s office, who were investigating a violent incident, which resulted in two arrests, they asserted their privilege against self-incrimination.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition was properly denied because petitioners can institute proceedings in the event of an adverse administrative determination (McGillicuddy v Monaghan, 280 App Div 144, 145; Matter of Askinazi v Police Dept., 25 AD2d 429). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 495, 597 N.Y.S.2d 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beecher-v-brown-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack