Daniel P. v. Rienzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daniel P. v. Rienzi

243 A.D.2d 567, 665 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9845

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 567 (Daniel P. v. Rienzi) 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

Daniel P. v. Rienzi, 243 A.D.2d 567, 665 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursu[568]*568ant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondents from enforcing an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), dated September 15, 1997, which directed the petitioner to furnish samples of his blood and hair, to submit to the taking of his palm prints, and to appear in lineups in connection with the investigation of the death of a named individual.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d 288; Matter of Vivanco v West, 214 AD2d 618). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rosenblatt, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursu[568]*568ant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondents from enforcing an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), dated September 15, 1997, which directed the petitioner to furnish samples of his blood and hair, to submit to the taking of his palm prints, and to appear in lineups in connection with the investigation of the death of a named individual.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d 288; Matter of Vivanco v West, 214 AD2d 618). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rosenblatt, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 567, 665 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-p-v-rienzi-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack