Williams v. Zambelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Zambelli

267 A.D.2d 243, 699 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12557

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 6, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent, Barbara G. Zambelli, a Justice of the County Court, Westchester County, from deciding any motions submitted by the petitioner to the County Court, Westchester County, and application for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel.

Ordered that the application for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person is granted; and it is further,

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

[244] “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 the relief sought. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Luciano, 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, Barbara G. Zambelli, a Justice of the County Court, Westchester County, from deciding any motions submitted by the petitioner to the County Court, Westchester County, and application for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel.

Ordered that the application for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person is granted; and it is further,

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

[244] “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 the relief sought. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Williams v. Zambelli, 267 A.D.2d 243, 699 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

267 A.D.2d 243 (Williams v. Zambelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related