Sheehan v. Cooperman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehan v. Cooperman

66 A.D.3d 913, 886 N.Y.S.2d 633

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 20, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 30, 2009, in an underlying criminal action entitled People v Sheehan, pending under Queens County indictment No. 1124/08.

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

The extraordinary writ of prohibition is available only where there exists a clear legal right, and only in those cases where a court acts or threatens to act in excess of its authorized powers (see Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 353 [1986]). It is never available “merely to correct or prevent trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however grievous” (La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 579 [1975], cert denied 424 US 968 [1976]), nor is it available if there exists an adequate remedy by way of appeal or otherwise (see Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718, 720 [1984]; Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143 [1983], cert denied 464 US 993 [1983]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, 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 enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 30, 2009, in an underlying criminal action entitled People v Sheehan, pending under Queens County indictment No. 1124/08.

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

The extraordinary writ of prohibition is available only where there exists a clear legal right, and only in those cases where a court acts or threatens to act in excess of its authorized powers (see Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 353 [1986]). It is never available “merely to correct or prevent trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however grievous” (La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 579 [1975], cert denied 424 US 968 [1976]), nor is it available if there exists an adequate remedy by way of appeal or otherwise (see Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718, 720 [1984]; Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143 [1983], cert denied 464 US 993 [1983]). Dillon, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

Sheehan v. Cooperman, 66 A.D.3d 913, 886 N.Y.S.2d 633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

66 A.D.3d 913 (Sheehan v. Cooperman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related