Opinion
June 16, 1997
Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie if there is available an adequate remedy at law, by way of appeal or otherwise ( see, Matter of Molea v. Marasco, 64 N.Y.2d 718), and thus, cannot be used as a means of seeking collateral review of an error of law claimed to have occurred in a criminal proceeding ( see, Matter of Hennessy v. Gorman, 58 N.Y.2d 806; Matter of Mulvaney v. Dubin, 55 N.Y.2d 668; Matter of State of New York v King, 36 N.Y.2d 59). Moreover, the remedy of mandamus may not be used to direct a subordinate judicial tribunal to decide an application in a particular manner ( see, Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525, 540; Matter of Kramer v. Rosenberger, 107 A.D.2d 748, 749).
Miller, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.