Williams v. Hynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Hynes

254 A.D.2d 296, 678 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10076

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 296 (Williams v. Hynes) 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

Williams v. Hynes, 254 A.D.2d 296, 678 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to preclude the respondents from prosecuting the petitioner under Kings County Indictment No. 10364/97 and for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Motion by the respondent Honorable Joseph A. Silverman to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the branch of the petition which is for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and that branch of the petition is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is otherwise 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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to [297]*297the relief sought. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Mc-Ginity, 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 preclude the respondents from prosecuting the petitioner under Kings County Indictment No. 10364/97 and for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Motion by the respondent Honorable Joseph A. Silverman to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the branch of the petition which is for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and that branch of the petition is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is otherwise 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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to [297]*297the relief sought. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 296, 678 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-hynes-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack