Everetts v. Dwyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Everetts v. Dwyer

86 A.D.2d 918, 447 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15594

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

DecidedFebruary 12, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 918 (Everetts v. Dwyer) 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

Everetts v. Dwyer, 86 A.D.2d 918, 447 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, for judgment in the nature of prohibition, denied, and petition dated December 29,1981 dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition is available only where petitioner has established a clear right to relief and where action taken or threatened is clearly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction (see, e.g., Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59). It is further clear that prohibition does not lie to review the exercise of discretion in a criminal case (Matter of Mullen v Harris, 80 AD2d 981; Matter of Bloom v Clyne, 69 AD2d 956; see CPLR 7801). Since the matter sought to be reviewed here involves an exercise of discretion by respondent County Judge, this proceeding does not lie (CPL 210.20, subd 4; Matter of Haley v Darrigrand, 64 AD2d 862, mot for lv to app den 46 NY2d 705). Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, for judgment in the nature of prohibition, denied, and petition dated December 29,1981 dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition is available only where petitioner has established a clear right to relief and where action taken or threatened is clearly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction (see, e.g., Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59). It is further clear that prohibition does not lie to review the exercise of discretion in a criminal case (Matter of Mullen v Harris, 80 AD2d 981; Matter of Bloom v Clyne, 69 AD2d 956; see CPLR 7801). Since the matter sought to be reviewed here involves an exercise of discretion by respondent County Judge, this proceeding does not lie (CPL 210.20, subd 4; Matter of Haley v Darrigrand, 64 AD2d 862, mot for lv to app den 46 NY2d 705). Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 918, 447 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everetts-v-dwyer-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack