Marino v. Appelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marino v. Appelman

157 A.D.2d 661, 549 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 236

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D.2d 661 (Marino v. Appelman) 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

Marino v. Appelman, 157 A.D.2d 661, 549 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondents, a Justice of the Supreme Court and other Justices assigned to the Eleventh Judicial District, from presiding over petitioners’ trials pursuant to Queens County indictments Nos. 2826/89, 2827/89 and 2828/89 and motion by the respondent Attorney-General to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f).

Ordered that the 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 as a means of seeking collateral review of an error of law, no matter how egregious, in a pending criminal matter (see, Matter of Kramer v Rosenberger, 107 AD2d 748, 749). Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to this remedy which transcends a question of substantive or procedural law and which could not otherwise be safeguarded through the alternative remedy of appeal (see, Matter of Lipari v Owens, 70 NY2d 731; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348; Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718), the proceeding is dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondents, a Justice of the Supreme Court and other Justices assigned to the Eleventh Judicial District, from presiding over petitioners’ trials pursuant to Queens County indictments Nos. 2826/89, 2827/89 and 2828/89 and motion by the respondent Attorney-General to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f).

Ordered that the 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 as a means of seeking collateral review of an error of law, no matter how egregious, in a pending criminal matter (see, Matter of Kramer v Rosenberger, 107 AD2d 748, 749). Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to this remedy which transcends a question of substantive or procedural law and which could not otherwise be safeguarded through the alternative remedy of appeal (see, Matter of Lipari v Owens, 70 NY2d 731; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348; Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718), the proceeding is dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 661, 549 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marino-v-appelman-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack