Matter of Holley v. Hyun-Chin Kim
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 05682 (Matter of Holley v. Hyun-Chin Kim) 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
Matter of Holley v Hyun-Chin Kim (2025 NY Slip Op 05682)
| Matter of Holley v Hyun-Chin Kim |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 05682 |
| Decided on October 15, 2025 |
| 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 October 15, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
BARRY E. WARHIT
CARL J. LANDICINO
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.
2025-08744
v
Hyun-Chin Kim, etc., et al., respondents.
Eli Davis Siems, Newburgh, NY (Christopher Brennan Sevier and Paul N. Weber of counsel), for petitioner.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent Hyun-Chin Kim.
Julia D. Cornachio Law, PLLC, Hopewell Junction, NY (Julia D. Cornachio, named herein as Julia Cornachio, pro se of counsel), for respondent Julia Cornachio.
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from retrying the petitioner in a criminal action entitled People v Holley , pending in the County Court, Orange County, under Indictment No. 70063/24, on the ground that to do so would subject him to double jeopardy.
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.
DILLON, J.P., WARHIT, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 05682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-holley-v-hyun-chin-kim-nyappdiv-2025.