Giovanelu v. Finnegan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giovanelu v. Finnegan

207 A.D.2d 782, 616 N.Y.S.2d 974

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 782 (Giovanelu v. Finnegan) 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

Giovanelu v. Finnegan, 207 A.D.2d 782, 616 N.Y.S.2d 974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a retrial of the petitioners under Queens County Indictment No. 518/86.

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

[783]*783Adjudged 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 petitioners here have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Altman, 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 proceeding with a retrial of the petitioners under Queens County Indictment No. 518/86.

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

[783]*783Adjudged 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 petitioners here have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 782, 616 N.Y.S.2d 974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giovanelu-v-finnegan-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack