Heaney v. Wexner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heaney v. Wexner

194 A.D.2d 725, 601 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6396

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

DecidedJune 21, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 725 (Heaney v. Wexner) 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

Heaney v. Wexner, 194 A.D.2d 725, 601 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of a writ of prohibí[726]*726tion, inter alia, seeking to bar the prosecution of the petitioner under Nassau County Indictment No. 80668.

Adjudged that 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). As the instant indictment appears to be valid on its face, the respondent court is not acting without jurisdiction, and the extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Sullivan, Balletta and Rosenblatt, 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 a writ of prohibí[726]*726tion, inter alia, seeking to bar the prosecution of the petitioner under Nassau County Indictment No. 80668.

Adjudged that 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). As the instant indictment appears to be valid on its face, the respondent court is not acting without jurisdiction, and the extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Sullivan, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 725, 601 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heaney-v-wexner-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack