Ernest H. v. Glasser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ernest H. v. Glasser

49 A.D.2d 907, 374 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11145

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 907 (Ernest H. v. Glasser) 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

Ernest H. v. Glasser, 49 A.D.2d 907, 374 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent to reinstate Charles Schinitsky and the Legal Aid Society and Rhoda J. Cohen of counsel, as attorney and Law Guardian for petitioner as respondent in a pending juvenile delinquency proceeding, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 24, 1975, which denied the petition. Order affirmed, without costs. An article 78 proceeding seeking relief in the nature of prohibition does not lie in the instant case since it cannot be said that respondent has proceeded in excess of his broad powers in the delinquency proceeding. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Christ and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent to reinstate Charles Schinitsky and the Legal Aid Society and Rhoda J. Cohen of counsel, as attorney and Law Guardian for petitioner as respondent in a pending juvenile delinquency proceeding, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 24, 1975, which denied the petition. Order affirmed, without costs. An article 78 proceeding seeking relief in the nature of prohibition does not lie in the instant case since it cannot be said that respondent has proceeded in excess of his broad powers in the delinquency proceeding. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Christ and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 907, 374 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-h-v-glasser-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack