Mitchell v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchell v. Cohen

217 A.D.2d 550, 628 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7529

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 217 A.D.2d 550 (Mitchell v. Cohen) 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

Mitchell v. Cohen, 217 A.D.2d 550, 628 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to preclude the respondents from trying the petitioner under Queens County Indictment No. 4928/94 and to dismiss the Indictment.

Motion by the respondent Charles Cohen to dismiss the proceeding.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto and in support of the motion, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, 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 challengedacts 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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Santucci, 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 preclude the respondents from trying the petitioner under Queens County Indictment No. 4928/94 and to dismiss the Indictment.

Motion by the respondent Charles Cohen to dismiss the proceeding.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto and in support of the motion, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, 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 challengedacts 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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 550, 628 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack