Stanislas v. Wettenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanislas v. Wettenstein

116 A.D.3d 871, 983 N.Y.S.2d 420

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

DecidedApril 16, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 871 (Stanislas v. Wettenstein) 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

Stanislas v. Wettenstein, 116 A.D.3d 871, 983 N.Y.S.2d 420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 for a writ of prohibition, in effect, to prohibit the Kings County District Attorney from prosecuting Kings County indictment No. 2417/12 on the ground that Kings County does not have jurisdiction over the crimes charged therein, and application by the petitioner to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

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

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding (see CPLR 506 [b]; 7804 [b]). Balkin, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 for a writ of prohibition, in effect, to prohibit the Kings County District Attorney from prosecuting Kings County indictment No. 2417/12 on the ground that Kings County does not have jurisdiction over the crimes charged therein, and application by the petitioner to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

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

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding (see CPLR 506 [b]; 7804 [b]). Balkin, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 871, 983 N.Y.S.2d 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanislas-v-wettenstein-nyappdiv-2014.