Justice v. Hudson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Justice v. Hudson

61 A.D.3d 1421, 877 N.Y.S.2d 716

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

DecidedApril 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 1421 (Justice v. Hudson) 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

Justice v. Hudson, 61 A.D.3d 1421, 877 N.Y.S.2d 716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme [1422]*1422Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), entered May 23, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to prohibit respondent, a Court of Claims judge, from adjourning his motions and the State of New York’s cross motions pending in petitioner’s action in the Court of Claims. Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. “[T]he petition alleges merely an . . . abuse of discretion that does not constitute the kind of abuse or perversion of a court’s jurisdiction as would warrant the issuance of a writ of prohibition” (Matter of Tyler v Forma, 231 AD2d 891, 892 [1996]; see People ex rel. Patrick v Fitzgerald, 73 App Div 339, 345 [1902]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme [1422]*1422Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), entered May 23, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to prohibit respondent, a Court of Claims judge, from adjourning his motions and the State of New York’s cross motions pending in petitioner’s action in the Court of Claims. Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. “[T]he petition alleges merely an . . . abuse of discretion that does not constitute the kind of abuse or perversion of a court’s jurisdiction as would warrant the issuance of a writ of prohibition” (Matter of Tyler v Forma, 231 AD2d 891, 892 [1996]; see People ex rel. Patrick v Fitzgerald, 73 App Div 339, 345 [1902]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 1421, 877 N.Y.S.2d 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justice-v-hudson-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack