Smith v. Gribetz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Gribetz

211 A.D.2d 605, 621 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 605 (Smith v. Gribetz) 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. Gribetz, 211 A.D.2d 605, 621 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents from continuing the prosecution of the petitioner under Rockland County Indictment No. 137/94 on the ground, inter alia, of lack of jurisdiction.

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

Relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only where a court acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers (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. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt, Miller and Thompson, 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 respondents from continuing the prosecution of the petitioner under Rockland County Indictment No. 137/94 on the ground, inter alia, of lack of jurisdiction.

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

Relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only where a court acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers (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. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt, Miller and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 605, 621 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-gribetz-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack