Matter of Gonzalez v. Spota

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Gonzalez v. Spota

128 A.D.3d 697, 6 N.Y.S.3d 499

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

DecidedMay 6, 2015

Docket2015-01910

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.3d 697 (Matter of Gonzalez v. Spota) 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 Gonzalez v. Spota, 128 A.D.3d 697, 6 N.Y.S.3d 499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Thomas J. Spota, the Suffolk County District Attorney, from prosecuting the petitioner under Suffolk County indictment No. I-2046A-13, and to prohibit the respondent Stephen Braslow, a Justice of the County Court, Suffolk County, from presiding over that criminal action.

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 Houston v D’Emic, 82 AD3d 1099, 1099 [2011], quoting Matter 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., Leventhal, Austin and LaSalle, 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 the respondent Thomas J. Spota, the Suffolk County District Attorney, from prosecuting the petitioner under Suffolk County indictment No. I-2046A-13, and to prohibit the respondent Stephen Braslow, a Justice of the County Court, Suffolk County, from presiding over that criminal action.

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 Houston v D’Emic, 82 AD3d 1099, 1099 [2011], quoting Matter 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., Leventhal, Austin and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 697, 6 N.Y.S.3d 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gonzalez-v-spota-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack