Dombroff v. Spota

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dombroff v. Spota

299 A.D.2d 484, 749 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11193

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 484 (Dombroff v. Spota) 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

Dombroff v. Spota, 299 A.D.2d 484, 749 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding [485]*485pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondents to disqualify themselves from prosecuting the petitioners under Suffolk County Indictment Nos. 449A/01 and 449D/01, and for the appointment of a Special District Attorney pursuant to County Law § 701.

Motion by the respondents to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter (see CPLR 506 [b] [1]). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, O’Brien and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding [485]*485pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondents to disqualify themselves from prosecuting the petitioners under Suffolk County Indictment Nos. 449A/01 and 449D/01, and for the appointment of a Special District Attorney pursuant to County Law § 701.

Motion by the respondents to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter (see CPLR 506 [b] [1]). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, O’Brien and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 484, 749 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dombroff-v-spota-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack