Gibson v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gibson v. Goldstein

218 A.D.2d 657, 630 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8275

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

DecidedAugust 7, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 218 A.D.2d 657 (Gibson v. Goldstein) 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

Gibson v. Goldstein, 218 A.D.2d 657, 630 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding by the petitioner pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to challenge his allegedly illegal arrest and to stay an order directing that he undergo a mental evaluation, and application by the petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding and the application.

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

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding and application are 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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding by the petitioner pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to challenge his allegedly illegal arrest and to stay an order directing that he undergo a mental evaluation, and application by the petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding and the application.

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

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding and application are 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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 657, 630 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack