Matter of Falco v. Spinner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Falco v. Spinner

136 A.D.3d 815, 24 N.Y.S.3d 518

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2016

Docket2015-11636

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.3d 815 (Matter of Falco v. Spinner) 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 Falco v. Spinner, 136 A.D.3d 815, 24 N.Y.S.3d 518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk *816 County, from enforcing his order dated November 4, 2015, inter alia, granting the motion of the respondent Laura Ann Bowery Falco to hold the petitioner in contempt for failing to pay child support, and his order dated November 10, 2015, denying the petitioner’s motion to vacate a prior order of the same court.

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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to relief in the nature of prohibition.

Chambers, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk *816 County, from enforcing his order dated November 4, 2015, inter alia, granting the motion of the respondent Laura Ann Bowery Falco to hold the petitioner in contempt for failing to pay child support, and his order dated November 10, 2015, denying the petitioner’s motion to vacate a prior order of the same court.

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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to relief in the nature of prohibition.

Chambers, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 815, 24 N.Y.S.3d 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-falco-v-spinner-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack