Brown v. Marrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Marrero

293 A.D.2d 674, 740 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3907

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

DecidedApril 22, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 674 (Brown 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

Brown v. Marrero, 293 A.D.2d 674, 740 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

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 Brown, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment No. 9020/2001, 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 8002 (b) is waived and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

[675]*675Adjudged 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 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. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Adams, 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 Brown, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment No. 9020/2001, 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 8002 (b) is waived and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

[675]*675Adjudged 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 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. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 674, 740 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-marrero-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack