Jones v. Nelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Nelson

206 A.D.2d 480, 615 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7498

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

DecidedJuly 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 480 (Jones v. Nelson) 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

Jones v. Nelson, 206 A.D.2d 480, 615 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to preclude the petitioner’s prosecution under Rockland County Indictment No. 93/296.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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 [481]*481excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Further, the extraordinary remedy of prohibition is never available where there exists "an adequate remedy, by way of appeal or otherwise” (Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718, 720; see, Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, cert denied 464 US 993). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, 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, inter alia, to preclude the petitioner’s prosecution under Rockland County Indictment No. 93/296.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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 [481]*481excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Further, the extraordinary remedy of prohibition is never available where there exists "an adequate remedy, by way of appeal or otherwise” (Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718, 720; see, Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, cert denied 464 US 993). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 480, 615 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-nelson-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack