Patchogue Medford Union Free School District v. Braslow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patchogue Medford Union Free School District v. Braslow

32 A.D.3d 857, 820 N.Y.S.2d 524

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.3d 857 (Patchogue Medford Union Free School District v. Braslow) 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

Patchogue Medford Union Free School District v. Braslow, 32 A.D.3d 857, 820 N.Y.S.2d 524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the enforcement of an order of the respondent, Stephen L. Braslow, a Judge of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated March 3, 2006, in a criminal action entitled People v Conwell, pending in the County Court, Suffolk County, under indictment No. 256-2006, which directed the petitioner to provide the defendant therein,' Christopher Conwell, with six hours of education per day, from Monday to Friday.

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 petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the enforcement of an order of the respondent, Stephen L. Braslow, a Judge of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated March 3, 2006, in a criminal action entitled People v Conwell, pending in the County Court, Suffolk County, under indictment No. 256-2006, which directed the petitioner to provide the defendant therein,' Christopher Conwell, with six hours of education per day, from Monday to Friday.

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 petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 857, 820 N.Y.S.2d 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patchogue-medford-union-free-school-district-v-braslow-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack