Sanchez v. Orgera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez v. Orgera

221 A.D.2d 641, 635 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12481

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 27, 1995·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent, Richard A. Brown, the District Attorney of Queens County, from prosecuting the petitioner under Queens County Indictment No. 12906/94, on the ground of lack of geographic jurisdiction.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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 (see, Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352; Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315-316). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought since a review of the Grand Jury minutes reveal that sufficient evidence was presented to establish that Queens County has jurisdiction to prosecute this case. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, 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, Richard A. Brown, the District Attorney of Queens County, from prosecuting the petitioner under Queens County Indictment No. 12906/94, on the ground of lack of geographic jurisdiction.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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 (see, Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352; Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315-316). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought since a review of the Grand Jury minutes reveal that sufficient evidence was presented to establish that Queens County has jurisdiction to prosecute this case. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Sanchez v. Orgera, 221 A.D.2d 641, 635 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

221 A.D.2d 641 (Sanchez v. Orgera) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related