Matter of Brown v. Kron

2018 NY Slip Op 1182
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 21, 2018
Docket2017-11813
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 1182 (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, 2018 NY Slip Op 1182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Matter of Brown v Kron (2018 NY Slip Op 01182)
Matter of Brown v Kron
2018 NY Slip Op 01182
Decided on February 21, 2018
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 21, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
JEFFREY A. COHEN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

2017-11813 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT

[*1]In the Matter of Josh Brown, petitioner,

v

Barry Kron, etc., respondent.


Josh Brown, Alden, NY, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent.



Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit Barry Kron, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from presiding over any further proceedings in a criminal action against the petitioner under Queens County Indictment No. 2349/04, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

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 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 establish a clear legal right to the relief sought.

MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Rush v. Mordue
502 N.E.2d 170 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Holtzman v. Goldman
523 N.E.2d 297 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 1182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-brown-v-kron-nyappdiv-2018.