Springer-Knight v. McKay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Springer-Knight v. McKay

24 A.D.3d 562, 805 N.Y.S.2d 290

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 562 (Springer-Knight v. McKay) 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

Springer-Knight v. McKay, 24 A.D.3d 562, 805 N.Y.S.2d 290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Joseph M. McKay, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from taking any further action in a case entitled People v Springer, pending under Kings County indictment No. 9445/01.

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 564, 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 (see Matter of Springer v McKay, 24 AD3d 562 [2005] [decided herewith]). Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Mastro and Lunn, 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 Joseph M. McKay, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from taking any further action in a case entitled People v Springer, pending under Kings County indictment No. 9445/01.

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 564, 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 (see Matter of Springer v McKay, 24 AD3d 562 [2005] [decided herewith]). Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 562, 805 N.Y.S.2d 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springer-knight-v-mckay-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack