Feuer v. Justices of the Supreme Court

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feuer v. Justices of the Supreme Court

271 A.D.2d 608, 707 N.Y.S.2d 340, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247

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

DecidedApril 17, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 608 (Feuer v. Justices of the Supreme Court) 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

Feuer v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 271 A.D.2d 608, 707 N.Y.S.2d 340, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondents from continuing the prosecution of a criminal action entitled People v Feuer, presently pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment Number 7700/99.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is 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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Joy, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondents from continuing the prosecution of a criminal action entitled People v Feuer, presently pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment Number 7700/99.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is 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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Joy, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 608, 707 N.Y.S.2d 340, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feuer-v-justices-of-the-supreme-court-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack