Home/New York Court of Appeals/MATTER OF HOLTZMAN v. Marrus

MATTER OF HOLTZMAN v. Marrus

547 N.E.2d 84, 74 N.Y.2d 865, 547 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 2998
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 17, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by256 cases

This text of 547 N.E.2d 84 (MATTER OF HOLTZMAN v. Marrus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MATTER OF HOLTZMAN v. Marrus, 547 N.E.2d 84, 74 N.Y.2d 865, 547 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 2998 (N.Y. 1989).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the petition dismissed.

The court had jurisdiction to try the case and the only question is whether it had the power to issue the preclusion order. Even if prohibition were available to challenge such an order the proceeding would have to be commenced within four months of the date on which the order became final and binding (CPLR 217). Because the order in this case went into effect immediately, the petition served on Justice Marrus more than four months after that date was untimely (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 566, at 793).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

*867 Judgment reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed in a memorandum.

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

Related

Matter of Solny v. Chun
2025 NY Slip Op 02347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Hyra v. Jacobellis
2017 NY Slip Op 1555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Teixeira v. Spota
130 A.D.3d 637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In the Matter of Eric Smith v. Richard A. Brown
20 N.E.3d 987 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)
Levy v. Reitz
118 A.D.3d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Working Families Party v. Fisher
109 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Smith v. Brown
105 A.D.3d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
DOORLEY, SANDRA J. v. DEMARCO, HON. JOHN L.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Doorley v. DeMarco
106 A.D.3d 27 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Johnson v. Griffin
38 A.D.3d 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Barron v. Colabella
296 A.D.2d 585 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Pavone v. Wood
252 A.D.2d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Brown v. Schulman
244 A.D.2d 406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Taub v. Committee on Professional Standards
200 A.D.2d 74 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
547 N.E.2d 84, 74 N.Y.2d 865, 547 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 2998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-holtzman-v-marrus-ny-1989.