Moore v. Mullen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Mullen

16 A.D.3d 509, 790 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2569

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 509 (Moore v. Mullen) 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

Moore v. Mullen, 16 A.D.3d 509, 790 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR [510]*510article 78 in the nature of a writ of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the trial of the actions entitled People v Moore, People v Prospect, and People v Myers, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Indictment Nos. 1010-04, 2153-04, and 2354-04, respectively.

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 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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioners have failed to demonstrate their clear legal right to the relief sought. Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR [510]*510article 78 in the nature of a writ of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the trial of the actions entitled People v Moore, People v Prospect, and People v Myers, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Indictment Nos. 1010-04, 2153-04, and 2354-04, respectively.

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 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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioners have failed to demonstrate their clear legal right to the relief sought. Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 509, 790 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-mullen-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack