Opinion
February 2, 1998
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.).
Ordered that the cross motion is granted; and it is further,
Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie if an adequate remedy at law, by way of appeal or otherwise, is available ( see, Matter of Molea v. Marasoo, 64 N.Y.2d 718). It cannot be used as a means of seeking collateral review of an error of law alleged 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). Here, since the petitioner has a wholly adequate method to review his claims by means of an appeal from the resentence, the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.
Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.