Matter of Weiner v. Spinner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Weiner v. Spinner

131 A.D.3d 1175, 16 N.Y.S.3d 751

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2015

Docket2015-05431

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1175 (Matter of Weiner v. Spinner) 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 Weiner v. Spinner, 131 A.D.3d 1175, 16 N.Y.S.3d 751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, from enforcing his order dated March 11, 2015, directing certain family offense proceedings commenced in the Family Court, Suffolk County, to be transferred to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and consolidated with a matrimonial action pending in that court.

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&emdash;in cases where judicial authority is challenged&emdash;acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its *1176 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.

Eng, P.J., Dickerson, Sgroi 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 Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, from enforcing his order dated March 11, 2015, directing certain family offense proceedings commenced in the Family Court, Suffolk County, to be transferred to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and consolidated with a matrimonial action pending in that court.

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&emdash;in cases where judicial authority is challenged&emdash;acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its *1176 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.

Eng, P.J., Dickerson, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 1175, 16 N.Y.S.3d 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-weiner-v-spinner-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack