Lucas v. Scheinman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lucas v. Scheinman

83 A.D.2d 969, 443 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15429

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 2, 1981·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, for judgment in the nature of prohibition, denied, without costs, and petition dated July 16,1981 dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of [970] prohibition is unavailable to review, at this stage of a criminal proceeding, matters such as the alleged bias or prejudice of a Trial Judge which can be raised upon direct appeal from a judgment of conviction (see Matter of Legal Aid Soc. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12; Matter of Fitzgerald v Wells, 9 AD2d 812, mot for rearg or lv to app den 10 AD2d 654, mot for lv to app den 7 NY2d 711, app dsmd 9 NY2d 864). Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, for judgment in the nature of prohibition, denied, without costs, and petition dated July 16,1981 dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of [970] prohibition is unavailable to review, at this stage of a criminal proceeding, matters such as the alleged bias or prejudice of a Trial Judge which can be raised upon direct appeal from a judgment of conviction (see Matter of Legal Aid Soc. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12; Matter of Fitzgerald v Wells, 9 AD2d 812, mot for rearg or lv to app den 10 AD2d 654, mot for lv to app den 7 NY2d 711, app dsmd 9 NY2d 864). Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Lucas v. Scheinman, 83 A.D.2d 969, 443 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

83 A.D.2d 969 (Lucas v. Scheinman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related