Popal v. Hanophy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Popal v. Hanophy

307 A.D.2d 999, 763 N.Y.S.2d 499, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8816

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

DecidedAugust 18, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 999 (Popal v. Hanophy) 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

Popal v. Hanophy, 307 A.D.2d 999, 763 N.Y.S.2d 499, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Robert J. Hanophy, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from commencing trial in an underlying criminal action entitled People v Popal, pending under Queens County Indictment No. 2186/02.

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 Wright v Greenberg, 296 AD2d 463 [2002]). Under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see generally People v Giordano, 87 NY2d 441 [1995]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, 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 respondent Robert J. Hanophy, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from commencing trial in an underlying criminal action entitled People v Popal, pending under Queens County Indictment No. 2186/02.

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 Wright v Greenberg, 296 AD2d 463 [2002]). Under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see generally People v Giordano, 87 NY2d 441 [1995]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 999, 763 N.Y.S.2d 499, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/popal-v-hanophy-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack