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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 26, 2013·Published

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.

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

Pincite

107 A.D.3d 991 (Guzman v. Spota) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related