Forbes v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forbes v. Roman

220 A.D.2d 712, 633 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10473

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 712 (Forbes v. Roman) 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

Forbes v. Roman, 220 A.D.2d 712, 633 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent from trying the petitioner under Queens County Indictment No. 5867/94, until a trial under Kings County Indictment No. 14860/94 has been commenced and concluded on the ground that trial of the Queens County indictment before that of the Kings County indictment will violate the defendant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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

"Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available [713]*713only 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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Altman and Florio, 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 respondent from trying the petitioner under Queens County Indictment No. 5867/94, until a trial under Kings County Indictment No. 14860/94 has been commenced and concluded on the ground that trial of the Queens County indictment before that of the Kings County indictment will violate the defendant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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

"Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available [713]*713only 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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 712, 633 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forbes-v-roman-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack