Opinion
2013-12-26
In the Matter of Amora RACHELLE, petitioner, v. Kathleen M. RICE, etc., et al., respondents.
Del Vechhio & Recine, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Steven M. Del Vechhio of counsel), for petitioner. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (April Montgomery of counsel), respondent pro se.
Del Vechhio & Recine, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Steven M. Del Vechhio of counsel), for petitioner. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (April Montgomery of counsel), respondent pro se.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a criminal action entitled People v. Rachelle, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Indictment No. 1387N/12.
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
“[A] petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition must demonstrate that: (1) a body or officer is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, (2) that body or officer is proceeding or threatening to proceed in excess of its jurisdiction and (3) petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief requested” (Matter of Garner v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 10 N.Y.3d 358, 361–362, 859 N.Y.S.2d 590, 889 N.E.2d 467; see Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297; Matter of Sedore v. Epstein, 56 A.D.3d 60, 63, 864 N.Y.S.2d 543).
Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought ( seeEducation Law § 6514; Matterof Willoughby v. Murphy, 54 A.D.3d 419, 863 N.Y.S.2d 470). DICKERSON, J.P., HALL, COHEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.