Opinion
August 7, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.).
Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The respondent Naro's exercise of his right to remain as Trial Judge in the pending matter at issue was within his discretion as a jurist. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie as a means of seeking collateral review of an alleged error of law in a pending criminal matter (see, Matter of Kramer v Rosenberger, 107 A.D.2d 748, 749). Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to this remedy which transcends a question of substantive or procedural law, and which could not otherwise be safeguarded through the alternative remedy of appeal (see, Matter of Lipari v. Owens, 70 N.Y.2d 731; Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348; Matter of Molea v. Marasco, 64 N.Y.2d 718), the proceeding is dismissed. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.