Guzman v. Spota

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guzman v. Spota

107 A.D.3d 991, 966 N.Y.S.2d 881

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

DecidedJune 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.D.3d 991 (Guzman v. Spota) 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

Guzman v. Spota, 107 A.D.3d 991, 966 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with an underlying criminal prosecution entitled People v Guzman, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under indictment No. 3152C-10, on the ground, inter alia, of lack of geographic jurisdiction.

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

Although a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition is a proper means of challenging venue in a criminal action (see Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315 [1977]), prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right to that relief (see id.). Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to prohibition (see Matter of Prospect v Doyle, 44 AD3d 863, 863 [2007]; cf. Matter of Sharkey v Town of Southold Justice Ct., 71 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Hall, Lott and Sgroi, 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 to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with an underlying criminal prosecution entitled People v Guzman, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under indictment No. 3152C-10, on the ground, inter alia, of lack of geographic jurisdiction.

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

Although a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition is a proper means of challenging venue in a criminal action (see Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315 [1977]), prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right to that relief (see id.). Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to prohibition (see Matter of Prospect v Doyle, 44 AD3d 863, 863 [2007]; cf. Matter of Sharkey v Town of Southold Justice Ct., 71 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Hall, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.3d 991, 966 N.Y.S.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzman-v-spota-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack