Santorelli v. Cowhey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santorelli v. Cowhey

247 A.D.2d 392, 667 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 869

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 392 (Santorelli v. Cowhey) 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

Santorelli v. Cowhey, 247 A.D.2d 392, 667 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of a prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents James R. Cowhey, a Justice of the Supreme Court, and Jeanine Ferris Pirro, District Attorney of Westchester County, from prosecuting the petitioner under Westchester County Indictment No. 96-01596, on the ground of lack of geographic jurisdiction.

Upon the petition and the 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). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Sanchez v Orgera, 221 AD2d 641; Matter of Arcuri v Kirk, 231 AD2d 962; cf., Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315-316).

Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and McGinity, 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, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents James R. Cowhey, a Justice of the Supreme Court, and Jeanine Ferris Pirro, District Attorney of Westchester County, from prosecuting the petitioner under Westchester County Indictment No. 96-01596, on the ground of lack of geographic jurisdiction.

Upon the petition and the 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). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Sanchez v Orgera, 221 AD2d 641; Matter of Arcuri v Kirk, 231 AD2d 962; cf., Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315-316).

Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 392, 667 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santorelli-v-cowhey-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack