Matter of Sottile v. Hyer
This text of 220 A.D.3d 800 (Matter of Sottile v. Hyer) 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 Sottile v Hyer |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 05141 |
| Decided on October 11, 2023 |
| 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 11, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
WILLIAM G. FORD
BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
2022-03068
v
James J. Hyer, etc., respondent.
Marianne Sottile, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (James B. Cooney of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent, James J. Hyer, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, from acting in excess of his authority, from enforcing an order dated March 28, 2022, issued in an action entitled Castle Peak 2012-1 Loan Trust Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2012-1 v Sottile , pending in the Supreme Court, Orange County, under Index No. 9857/10, and from presiding over that action and an action entitled Sottile v Marchai Properties, LP , pending in the Supreme Court, Orange County, under Index No. 655/22.
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.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., MALTESE, FORD and WARHIT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Acting 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
220 A.D.3d 800, 196 N.Y.S.3d 804, 2023 NY Slip Op 05141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-sottile-v-hyer-nyappdiv-2023.