Matter of Asher v. Poulos
This text of Matter of Asher v. Poulos (Matter of Asher v. Poulos) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Asher v Poulos
2026 NY Slip Op 04189
July 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Justin Asher, petitioner,
v
Deborah Poulos, etc., respondent.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 1, 2026
2026-02299
Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.
Janice A. Taylor
Lourdes M. Ventura
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
Justin Asher, New York, NY, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Miranda Onnen of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Deborah Poulos, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, from enforcing an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 25, 2026, issued in an action entitled She v Church, pending in that court under Index No. 629216/23.
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, 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; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
DUFFY, J.P., TAYLOR, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matter of Asher v. Poulos, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-asher-v-poulos-nyappdiv-2026.