Bugge v. Corso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bugge v. Corso

256 A.D.2d 616, 682 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14105

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 616 (Bugge v. Corso) 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

Bugge v. Corso, 256 A.D.2d 616, 682 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to preclude the respondents from continuing a criminal prosecution against the petitioner under Suffolk County Indictment No. 1437-97.

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

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available [617]*617only 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). Prohibition is not available to obtain “premature appellate review of issues properly reviewable in the regular appellate process” (Matter of Rush v Mordue, supra, at 352). Because the petitioner’s claim may be properly reviewed on direct appeal from a judgment entered against him, the remedy of prohibition does not lie and the petition is dismissed (see, Matter of Maisonet v Merola, 69 NY2d 965, 966). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and McGinity, 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 preclude the respondents from continuing a criminal prosecution against the petitioner under Suffolk County Indictment No. 1437-97.

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

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available [617]*617only 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). Prohibition is not available to obtain “premature appellate review of issues properly reviewable in the regular appellate process” (Matter of Rush v Mordue, supra, at 352). Because the petitioner’s claim may be properly reviewed on direct appeal from a judgment entered against him, the remedy of prohibition does not lie and the petition is dismissed (see, Matter of Maisonet v Merola, 69 NY2d 965, 966). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 616, 682 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bugge-v-corso-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack