Ellman v. Nastasi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellman v. Nastasi

188 A.D.2d 465, 592 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13574

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 465 (Ellman v. Nastasi) 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

Ellman v. Nastasi, 188 A.D.2d 465, 592 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition (1) to bar the respondents from maintaining custody of the petitioner, or otherwise commencing or continuing any proceedings against him in the nature of criminal contempt, and (2) to bar the respondents from issuing or enforcing any order modifying the judgment or sentence issued to the petitioner for civil contempt, or affecting the good time credit issued to the petitioner.

Adjudged that the petitions are denied and the proceedings are 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; Matter of Crain Communications v Hughes, 74 NY2d 626, 627-628). The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested which could not be otherwise safeguarded through alternative remedies (see, Matter of Lipari v Owens, 70 NY2d 731; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 353). Thus, the proceedings are dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition (1) to bar the respondents from maintaining custody of the petitioner, or otherwise commencing or continuing any proceedings against him in the nature of criminal contempt, and (2) to bar the respondents from issuing or enforcing any order modifying the judgment or sentence issued to the petitioner for civil contempt, or affecting the good time credit issued to the petitioner.

Adjudged that the petitions are denied and the proceedings are 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; Matter of Crain Communications v Hughes, 74 NY2d 626, 627-628). The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested which could not be otherwise safeguarded through alternative remedies (see, Matter of Lipari v Owens, 70 NY2d 731; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 353). Thus, the proceedings are dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 465, 592 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellman-v-nastasi-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack