From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cockett v. Ambro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 2010
79 A.D.3d 1125 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2010-11383.

December 28, 2010.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a criminal action entitled People v Cockett, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under indictment No. 769B/09.

Alice A. Nicholson, Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent Richard Ambro.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo and Marc Lindemann of counsel), respondent pro se.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ.


Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, 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 the relief sought.


Summaries of

Cockett v. Ambro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 2010
79 A.D.3d 1125 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Cockett v. Ambro

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ARTHUR COCKETT, Petitioner, v. RICHARD AMBRO et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 28, 2010

Citations

79 A.D.3d 1125 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 9912
913 N.Y.S.2d 580