Fontaine v. Kohm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fontaine v. Kohm

259 A.D.2d 701, 685 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2725

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 701 (Fontaine v. Kohm) 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

Fontaine v. Kohm, 259 A.D.2d 701, 685 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents from continuing the prosecution of a criminal action entitled People v Fontaine, presently pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. 2798/95, and application to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application is granted and the petitioner may prosecute the proceeding as a poor person; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“Because cf 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. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents from continuing the prosecution of a criminal action entitled People v Fontaine, presently pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. 2798/95, and application to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application is granted and the petitioner may prosecute the proceeding as a poor person; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“Because cf 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. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 701, 685 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fontaine-v-kohm-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack