Jean-Laurent v. Erlbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jean-Laurent v. Erlbaum

17 A.D.3d 589, 792 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4088

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

DecidedApril 18, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 589 (Jean-Laurent v. Erlbaum) 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

Jean-Laurent v. Erlbaum, 17 A.D.3d 589, 792 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prevent the respondent William Erlbaum, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from proceeding with the trial of the charges contained in indictment No. 701/04, in a criminal action entitled People v Jean-Laurent, commenced in the Supreme Court, Queens County, which was consolidated with indictment No. 2269/03, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

[590]*590Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged 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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, 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 prevent the respondent William Erlbaum, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from proceeding with the trial of the charges contained in indictment No. 701/04, in a criminal action entitled People v Jean-Laurent, commenced in the Supreme Court, Queens County, which was consolidated with indictment No. 2269/03, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

[590]*590Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged 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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 589, 792 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jean-laurent-v-erlbaum-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack