Matter of Krichevsky v. Sanders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Krichevsky v. Sanders

132 A.D.3d 764, 17 N.Y.S.3d 661

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2015

Docket2015-06261

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 764 (Matter of Krichevsky v. Sanders) 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 Krichevsky v. Sanders, 132 A.D.3d 764, 17 N.Y.S.3d 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Bernadette Bayne, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from presiding over an action entitled Krichevsky v Levoritz, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 19478/13; motion by the petitioner, inter alia, to compel the Assistant Attorney General Michelle R. Lambert and the respondent Noah Nunberg to “certify their paperwork” and to impose sanctions upon them pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, separate motions by nonparties Lidya Radin and Zev Yourman, inter alia, for leave to intervene in the proceeding, and cross motion by the respondents L’Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Noah Nunberg, Marian Rice, Candice B. Ratner, and Elaine Sabino, inter alia, to impose sanctions upon the petitioner pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the motions and the cross motion are 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 *765 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.

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, 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 Bernadette Bayne, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from presiding over an action entitled Krichevsky v Levoritz, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 19478/13; motion by the petitioner, inter alia, to compel the Assistant Attorney General Michelle R. Lambert and the respondent Noah Nunberg to “certify their paperwork” and to impose sanctions upon them pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, separate motions by nonparties Lidya Radin and Zev Yourman, inter alia, for leave to intervene in the proceeding, and cross motion by the respondents L’Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Noah Nunberg, Marian Rice, Candice B. Ratner, and Elaine Sabino, inter alia, to impose sanctions upon the petitioner pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the motions and the cross motion are 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 *765 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.

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 764, 17 N.Y.S.3d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-krichevsky-v-sanders-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack