In re Minott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Minott

247 A.D.2d 390, 667 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 864

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 390 (In re Minott) 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

In re Minott, 247 A.D.2d 390, 667 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and mandamus to prohibit the respondents from enforcing a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), rendered May 8, 1997, which vacated the original sentence imposed February 5, 1996, in the case of People v Hopeton Minott (Westchester County Indictment No. 1778-94), adjudicating the petitioner a youthful offender and placing him on probation for five years, unless sooner terminated by the court, subject to certain conditions, and resentenced him to an indeterminate term of three to nine years imprisonment, and to compel the respondents to reinstate the original sentence. Cross motion by the respondent Peter M. Leavitt to dismiss the petition.

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

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie if an adequate remedy at law, by way of appeal or otherwise, is available (see, Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718). It cannot be used as a means of seeking collateral review of an error of law alleged to have occurred in a criminal proceeding (see, Matter of Hennessy v Gorman, 58 NY2d 806; Matter of Mulvaney v Dubin, 55 NY2d 668; Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59). Here, since the petitioner has a wholly adequate method to review his claims by means of an appeal from the resentence, the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.

Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Luciano, 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 and mandamus to prohibit the respondents from enforcing a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), rendered May 8, 1997, which vacated the original sentence imposed February 5, 1996, in the case of People v Hopeton Minott (Westchester County Indictment No. 1778-94), adjudicating the petitioner a youthful offender and placing him on probation for five years, unless sooner terminated by the court, subject to certain conditions, and resentenced him to an indeterminate term of three to nine years imprisonment, and to compel the respondents to reinstate the original sentence. Cross motion by the respondent Peter M. Leavitt to dismiss the petition.

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

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie if an adequate remedy at law, by way of appeal or otherwise, is available (see, Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718). It cannot be used as a means of seeking collateral review of an error of law alleged to have occurred in a criminal proceeding (see, Matter of Hennessy v Gorman, 58 NY2d 806; Matter of Mulvaney v Dubin, 55 NY2d 668; Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59). Here, since the petitioner has a wholly adequate method to review his claims by means of an appeal from the resentence, the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.

Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 390, 667 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-minott-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack