Prospect v. Doyle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prospect v. Doyle

44 A.D.3d 863, 842 N.Y.S.2d 917

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 16, 2007·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of a prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a criminal action entitled People v Prospect, pending under Suffolk County indictment No. 2011-06, on the ground of lack of geographic jurisdiction.

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]; Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315-316 [1977]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought (see Matter of Norman v Hynes, 20 AD3d 125, 136 [2005]; Matter of Santorelli v Cowhey, 247 AD2d 392 [1998]; Matter of Arcuri v Kirk, 231 AD2d 962, 963 [1996]; Matter of Sanchez v Orgera, 221 AD2d 641 [1995]; cf. Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d at 315-316). Crane, J.P., Florio, Carni and McCarthy, 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 a prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a criminal action entitled People v Prospect, pending under Suffolk County indictment No. 2011-06, on the ground of lack of geographic jurisdiction.

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]; Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315-316 [1977]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought (see Matter of Norman v Hynes, 20 AD3d 125, 136 [2005]; Matter of Santorelli v Cowhey, 247 AD2d 392 [1998]; Matter of Arcuri v Kirk, 231 AD2d 962, 963 [1996]; Matter of Sanchez v Orgera, 221 AD2d 641 [1995]; cf. Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d at 315-316). Crane, J.P., Florio, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Prospect v. Doyle, 44 A.D.3d 863, 842 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

44 A.D.3d 863 (Prospect v. Doyle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related