Crosby v. Mangano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crosby v. Mangano

293 A.D.2d 605, 740 N.Y.S.2d 234, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3686

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

DecidedApril 15, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 605 (Crosby v. Mangano) 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

Crosby v. Mangano, 293 A.D.2d 605, 740 N.Y.S.2d 234, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to stay all proceedings in an action entitled People v Crosby, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment No. 5287/2001, and application for poor person relief.

Application by the respondent Charles J. Hynes to dismiss the proceeding.

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,

Ordered that the application to dismiss the proceeding is granted; and it is further,

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). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Cozier, 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 stay all proceedings in an action entitled People v Crosby, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment No. 5287/2001, and application for poor person relief.

Application by the respondent Charles J. Hynes to dismiss the proceeding.

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,

Ordered that the application to dismiss the proceeding is granted; and it is further,

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). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 605, 740 N.Y.S.2d 234, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosby-v-mangano-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack