Boyce v. Marrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boyce v. Marrero

271 A.D.2d 687, 707 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4452

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

DecidedApril 24, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 687 (Boyce v. Marrero) 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

Boyce v. Marrero, 271 A.D.2d 687, 707 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with the prosecution of a criminal action entitled People v Boyce, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment No. 3283/ 99, and application for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

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

“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 [688]*688564, 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. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, 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 respondents from proceeding with the prosecution of a criminal action entitled People v Boyce, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment No. 3283/ 99, and application for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

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

“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 [688]*688564, 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. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 687, 707 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyce-v-marrero-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack