Mullen v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mullen v. Harris

80 A.D.2d 981, 437 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10892

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 981 (Mullen v. Harris) 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

Mullen v. Harris, 80 A.D.2d 981, 437 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Application pursuant to CPLR article 78, for judgment in the nature of prohibition, denied, and petition dated March 26, 1981 dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition is available only where petitioner has established a clear right to relief and where action taken or threatened is clearly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction (see, e.g., Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59). It is further clear that prohibition does not lie to review the exercise of discretion in criminal cases (Matter of Bloom v Clyne, 69 AD2d 956; Matter of Bloeth v Marks, 20 AD2d 372, mot for lv to app den 15 NY2d 481) and is not available to review claimed errors of substantive or procedural law, even where constitutional issues are involved (La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 580, cert den 424 US 968; Matter of Bloom v Clyne, supra). In view of these principles and, further, since the actions complained of in support of the petition would be reviewable on an appeal from a judgment of conviction, this collateral proceeding does not lie. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

Application pursuant to CPLR article 78, for judgment in the nature of prohibition, denied, and petition dated March 26, 1981 dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition is available only where petitioner has established a clear right to relief and where action taken or threatened is clearly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction (see, e.g., Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59). It is further clear that prohibition does not lie to review the exercise of discretion in criminal cases (Matter of Bloom v Clyne, 69 AD2d 956; Matter of Bloeth v Marks, 20 AD2d 372, mot for lv to app den 15 NY2d 481) and is not available to review claimed errors of substantive or procedural law, even where constitutional issues are involved (La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 580, cert den 424 US 968; Matter of Bloom v Clyne, supra). In view of these principles and, further, since the actions complained of in support of the petition would be reviewable on an appeal from a judgment of conviction, this collateral proceeding does not lie. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 981, 437 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullen-v-harris-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack