DiCicco v. Nicolai

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiCicco v. Nicolai

285 A.D.2d 645, 728 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7712

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

DecidedJuly 30, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 645 (DiCicco v. Nicolai) 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

DiCicco v. Nicolai, 285 A.D.2d 645, 728 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to enjoin the respondents from proceeding in a criminal action entitled People v DiCicco, pending in the City Court, City of Peekskill, under Docket No. 01-0010, and a civil action entitled Fidlow v DiCicco, pending in the Village Court, Village of Scarsdale, under Index No. 2000 CTV 26T/SC.

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 [646]*646court — 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 has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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 enjoin the respondents from proceeding in a criminal action entitled People v DiCicco, pending in the City Court, City of Peekskill, under Docket No. 01-0010, and a civil action entitled Fidlow v DiCicco, pending in the Village Court, Village of Scarsdale, under Index No. 2000 CTV 26T/SC.

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 [646]*646court — 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 has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 645, 728 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dicicco-v-nicolai-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack