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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 14, 1975·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

49 A.D.2d 907 (Ernest H. v. Glasser) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related