Crawford v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crawford v. Abrams

86 A.D.2d 780, 448 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15363

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 780 (Crawford v. Abrams) 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

Crawford v. Abrams, 86 A.D.2d 780, 448 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Application unanimously denied and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks relief in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent County Judge of Cattaraugus County from proceeding with a retrial of charges against her. At the close of the People’s proof in petitioner’s trial on charges of grand larceny, second degree (Penal Law, § 155.35) arising out of alleged welfare fraud, the court denied a defense motion for a trial order of dismissal. The defense did not present any evidence. During an adjournment before the summations, an exchange between a juror and a member of the county Sheriff’s department prompted a defense motion for mistrial, which was granted. Where, as here, the defendant requested the mistrial and the underlying error was not “ ‘motivated by bad faith [of the Judge or prosecutor] or undertaken to harass or prejudice’ ” (Lee v United States, 432 US 23, 33, quoting United States v Dinitz, 424 US 600, 611), reprosecution is permitted. Petitioner argues, however, that we should reach the issue of whether, as she asserts, the trial court improperly denied her motion for a trial order of dismissal. She urges that if we do not do so, the claimed error in denying the motion will be beyond review. Such an error of law is not a proper basis for using the “extraordinary remedy” of prohibition. Prohibition lies “only when a court * * * acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction in a matter * * * [in] which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” (Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62). Nonreviewability alone is not a ground for such relief (Matter of State of New York v King supra, p 62). We note also that the People were not made a party to this proceeding. (Art 78.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Application unanimously denied and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks relief in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent County Judge of Cattaraugus County from proceeding with a retrial of charges against her. At the close of the People’s proof in petitioner’s trial on charges of grand larceny, second degree (Penal Law, § 155.35) arising out of alleged welfare fraud, the court denied a defense motion for a trial order of dismissal. The defense did not present any evidence. During an adjournment before the summations, an exchange between a juror and a member of the county Sheriff’s department prompted a defense motion for mistrial, which was granted. Where, as here, the defendant requested the mistrial and the underlying error was not “ ‘motivated by bad faith [of the Judge or prosecutor] or undertaken to harass or prejudice’ ” (Lee v United States, 432 US 23, 33, quoting United States v Dinitz, 424 US 600, 611), reprosecution is permitted. Petitioner argues, however, that we should reach the issue of whether, as she asserts, the trial court improperly denied her motion for a trial order of dismissal. She urges that if we do not do so, the claimed error in denying the motion will be beyond review. Such an error of law is not a proper basis for using the “extraordinary remedy” of prohibition. Prohibition lies “only when a court * * * acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction in a matter * * * [in] which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” (Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62). Nonreviewability alone is not a ground for such relief (Matter of State of New York v King supra, p 62). We note also that the People were not made a party to this proceeding. (Art 78.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 780, 448 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-abrams-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack