Clark v. Kron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. Kron

250 A.D.2d 610, 671 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4926

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

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 610 (Clark v. Kron) 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

Clark v. Kron, 250 A.D.2d 610, 671 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4926 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents from taking any further action against the petitioner in the matter entitled People v Robert Clark, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. QN11570/97.

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 564, 569; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). [611]*611The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Miller, J. P., Joy, 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 prohibit the respondents from taking any further action against the petitioner in the matter entitled People v Robert Clark, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. QN11570/97.

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 564, 569; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). [611]*611The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Miller, J. P., Joy, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 610, 671 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-kron-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack