Morgan v. Resnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgan v. Resnick

300 A.D.2d 663, 752 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13353

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 663 (Morgan v. Resnick) 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

Morgan v. Resnick, 300 A.D.2d 663, 752 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the use of blood samples obtained in a pending criminal action and application for poor person relief.

[664]*664Motion by the nonparty respondent Office of the District Attorney of Rockland County to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8002 (b) is waived and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

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 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. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Mastro, 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 use of blood samples obtained in a pending criminal action and application for poor person relief.

[664]*664Motion by the nonparty respondent Office of the District Attorney of Rockland County to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8002 (b) is waived and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

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 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. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 663, 752 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-resnick-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack