Smith v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Cohen

55 A.D.3d 841, 865 N.Y.S.2d 588

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 841 (Smith v. Cohen) 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

Smith v. Cohen, 55 A.D.3d 841, 865 N.Y.S.2d 588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent, Jeffrey Cohen, a Justice of the County Court, Westchester County, from proceeding with the trial in an action entitled People v Smith, pending in that court under indictment No. 08-00084.

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” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d [842]*842564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Spolzino, J.E, Ritter, Santucci and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent, Jeffrey Cohen, a Justice of the County Court, Westchester County, from proceeding with the trial in an action entitled People v Smith, pending in that court under indictment No. 08-00084.

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” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d [842]*842564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Spolzino, J.E, Ritter, Santucci and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 841, 865 N.Y.S.2d 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-cohen-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack