Crandall v. Harrigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crandall v. Harrigan

183 A.D.2d 1009, 583 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6848

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

DecidedMay 14, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 183 A.D.2d 1009 (Crandall v. Harrigan) 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

Crandall v. Harrigan, 183 A.D.2d 1009, 583 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercure, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to, inter alia, vacate an order of respondent Schenectady County Judge appointing a special District Attorney in a criminal action pending against petitioner.

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition, petitioner challenges respondent Schenectady County Judge’s August 7, 1990 appointment of a special District Attorney to prosecute criminal charges pending against him in County Court. Specifically, petitioner alleges a lack of compliance with 22 NYCRR 200.15, which requires that the Chief Administrator of the Courts, in consultation and agreement with the Presiding Justice of the appropriate Appellate Division, designate a superior court Judge to consider an application for appointment of a special District Attorney. The contention is meritless. By administrative order dated December 18, 1989, the Chief Administrator of the Courts and the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, Third Department, designated the County Judge to hear applications for the appointment of special District Attorneys in Schenectady County during 1990. Therefore, there has been compliance with the rule. Petitioner’s other arguments have been considered and found to be without merit.

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll and Crew III, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition dismissed, without costs.

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

Mercure, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this court pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to, inter alia, vacate an order of respondent Schenectady County Judge appointing a special District Attorney in a criminal action pending against petitioner.

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition, petitioner challenges respondent Schenectady County Judge’s August 7, 1990 appointment of a special District Attorney to prosecute criminal charges pending against him in County Court. Specifically, petitioner alleges a lack of compliance with 22 NYCRR 200.15, which requires that the Chief Administrator of the Courts, in consultation and agreement with the Presiding Justice of the appropriate Appellate Division, designate a superior court Judge to consider an application for appointment of a special District Attorney. The contention is meritless. By administrative order dated December 18, 1989, the Chief Administrator of the Courts and the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, Third Department, designated the County Judge to hear applications for the appointment of special District Attorneys in Schenectady County during 1990. Therefore, there has been compliance with the rule. Petitioner’s other arguments have been considered and found to be without merit.

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll and Crew III, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 1009, 583 N.Y.S.2d 646, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crandall-v-harrigan-nyappdiv-1992.