Pryor v. Garry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pryor v. Garry

29 A.D.2d 617, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2645

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 617 (Pryor v. Garry) 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

Pryor v. Garry, 29 A.D.2d 617, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to dismiss petition under CPLR article 78 to (1) compel respondent County Judge to dismiss a pending indictment; (2) compel respondent Police Justice to grant petitioner an examination of the ease pursuant to statute (Code Grim. Pro., § 190); and (3) prohibit further proceedings until the afore-mentioned examination shall have been completed and petitioner afforded an opportunity to appear before a Grand Jury investigating the charges against him (Code Grim. Pro., § 250), granted without costs. An article 78 proceeding does not lie to compel a judicial decision to be made in a particular way (Matter of Bicapito v. People, 20 A D 2d 567). Prohibition could be granted only if the County Court were totally lacking in jurisdiction or petitioner were without adequate remedy. Neither situation exists here (People ex rel. Hirschberg v. Close, 1 N Y 2d 258). Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.

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

Motion to dismiss petition under CPLR article 78 to (1) compel respondent County Judge to dismiss a pending indictment; (2) compel respondent Police Justice to grant petitioner an examination of the ease pursuant to statute (Code Grim. Pro., § 190); and (3) prohibit further proceedings until the afore-mentioned examination shall have been completed and petitioner afforded an opportunity to appear before a Grand Jury investigating the charges against him (Code Grim. Pro., § 250), granted without costs. An article 78 proceeding does not lie to compel a judicial decision to be made in a particular way (Matter of Bicapito v. People, 20 A D 2d 567). Prohibition could be granted only if the County Court were totally lacking in jurisdiction or petitioner were without adequate remedy. Neither situation exists here (People ex rel. Hirschberg v. Close, 1 N Y 2d 258). Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 617, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryor-v-garry-nyappdiv-1967.