Rachelle v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rachelle v. Rice

112 A.D.3d 942, 976 N.Y.S.2d 888

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 942 (Rachelle v. Rice) 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

Rachelle v. Rice, 112 A.D.3d 942, 976 N.Y.S.2d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a criminal action entitled People v Rachelle, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under indictment No. 1387N/12.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“[A] petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition must demonstrate that: (1) a body or officer is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, (2) that body or officer is proceeding or threatening to proceed in excess of its jurisdiction and (3) petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief requested” (Matter of Garner v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 10 NY3d 358, 361-362 [2008]; see Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; Matter of Sedore v Epstein, 56 AD3d 60, 63 [2008]).

Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Education Law § 6514; Matter of Willoughby v Murphy, 54 AD3d 419 [2008]). Dickerson, J.P, Hall, Cohen and 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 to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a criminal action entitled People v Rachelle, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under indictment No. 1387N/12.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“[A] petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition must demonstrate that: (1) a body or officer is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, (2) that body or officer is proceeding or threatening to proceed in excess of its jurisdiction and (3) petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief requested” (Matter of Garner v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 10 NY3d 358, 361-362 [2008]; see Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; Matter of Sedore v Epstein, 56 AD3d 60, 63 [2008]).

Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Education Law § 6514; Matter of Willoughby v Murphy, 54 AD3d 419 [2008]). Dickerson, J.P, Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 942, 976 N.Y.S.2d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rachelle-v-rice-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack