Matter of Brown v. Kron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Brown v. Kron

122 A.D.3d 842, 996 N.Y.S.2d 360

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2014

Docket2014-07504

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.3d 842 (Matter of Brown v. Kron) 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

Matter of Brown v. Kron, 122 A.D.3d 842, 996 N.Y.S.2d 360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit Justice Barry Kron, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from hearing and determining the petitioner’s motion to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered against him on August 18, 2005, in the Supreme Court, Queens County, in a criminal action entitled People v Brown, commenced in that court under indictment No. 2349/04, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

*843 Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that so much of the petition as seeks to prohibit the respondent from hearing and determining the petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction is denied as academic, and the petition is otherwise denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

So much of the instant proceeding as seeks to prohibit the respondent from hearing and determining the petitioner’s motion to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered against him on August 18, 2005, has been rendered academic in light of the order of the respondent dated September 9, 2014, deciding the petitioner’s motion.

As to the remainder of the petition, “[bjecause 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” (M atter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Dillon, J.P, Chambers, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit Justice Barry Kron, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from hearing and determining the petitioner’s motion to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered against him on August 18, 2005, in the Supreme Court, Queens County, in a criminal action entitled People v Brown, commenced in that court under indictment No. 2349/04, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

*843 Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that so much of the petition as seeks to prohibit the respondent from hearing and determining the petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction is denied as academic, and the petition is otherwise denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

So much of the instant proceeding as seeks to prohibit the respondent from hearing and determining the petitioner’s motion to vacate a judgment of conviction rendered against him on August 18, 2005, has been rendered academic in light of the order of the respondent dated September 9, 2014, deciding the petitioner’s motion.

As to the remainder of the petition, “[bjecause 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” (M atter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Dillon, J.P, Chambers, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 842, 996 N.Y.S.2d 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-brown-v-kron-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack