Brown v. Blumenfeld

12 Citing cases

  1. Maria S. v. Tully

    214 A.D.3d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    The petitioner thereafter commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit enforcement of the judicial subpoena. A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy available " ‘only where there is a clear legal right’ to such relief and ‘only when a court (if a court is involved) acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction’ " or, as relevant here, " ‘exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction’ " ( Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 54, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171, quoting Matter of State of New York v. King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 62, 364 N.Y.S.2d 879, 324 N.E.2d 351 ; see CPLR 7803[2] ; Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297 ). "In essence, prohibition is available only in ‘those rare circumstances where an arrogation of power would justify burdening the judicial process with collateral intervention and summary correction’ " ( Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d at 54, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171, quoting Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 354, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170 ).

  2. Hoovler v. De Rosa

    143 A.D.3d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 9 times

    523 N.E.2d 297 ; see Matter of Pirro v. Angiolillo, 89 N.Y.2d 351, 355, 653 N.Y.S.2d 237, 675 N.E.2d 1189 ). “Moreover, prohibition ‘will not lie as a means of seeking collateral review of mere trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however egregious the error may be, and however cleverly the error may be characterized by counsel as an excess of jurisdiction or power’ ” (Matter of Blumen v. McGann, 18 A.D.3d 870, 870, 796 N.Y.S.2d 380, quoting Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 353, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170 ; see Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 89 A.D.3d 94, 103, 930 N.Y.S.2d 610 ). “In drawing the difficult distinction between legal errors and actions taken in excess of power, however, the Court of Appeals has instructed that such excesses of power involve ‘an unlawful use or abuse of the entire action or proceeding as distinguished from an unlawful procedure or error in the action or proceeding itself related to the proper purpose of the action or proceeding’ ” (Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 56, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171, quoting Matter of State of New York v. King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 64, 364 N.Y.S.2d 879, 324 N.E.2d 351 ). “Prohibition may be an appropriate remedy where a court exceeds its statutory authority by ordering the People to make disclosure which they are not required to make pursuant to the governing statutes” (Matter of Phillips v. Ramsey, 42 A.D.3d 456, 458, 839 N.Y.S.2d 223 ; see Matter of Pirro v. LaCava, 230 A.D.2d 909, 910, 646 N.Y.S.2d 866 ; Matter of Catterson v. Rohl, 202 A.D.2d 420, 422, 608 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; Matter of Johnson v. Brandveen, 160 A.D.2d 668, 559 N.Y.S.2d 516 ). A criminal defendant's rights to discovery are contained in CPL article 240 (see Matter of Miller v. Schwartz, 72 N.Y.2d 869, 870, 532 N.Y.S.2d 354, 528 N.E.2d 507 ; Matter of Brown v. Grosso, 285 A.D.2d 642, 644, 729 N.Y.S.2d 492 ; Matter of Brown v. Appelman, 241 A.D.2d 279, 283–284, 672 N.Y.S.2d 373 ). “Discovery which is unavailable pursuant to statute may not be ordered based on principles of due process becaus

  3. Case v. Freed

    75 Misc. 3d 1203 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    More importantly though, the Second Department has closely examined and ruled on the limits placed upon a Trial Justice in the Supreme Court in attempting to fashion a remedy or sanction as a response to a violation of the rules governing the conduct of attorneys. In Matter of Richard A. Brown v. Joel L. Blumenfeld , 103 AD3d 45, 957 NYS2d 171 (2d Dept 2012), the Court was confronted with a CPLR Article 78 petition in the nature of Prohibition. In Brown, the elected Queens County District Attorney ("DA" or "the DA") named an acting Supreme Court Justice ("Judge" or "the Judge") as a respondent in a special proceeding.

  4. Gentil v. Margulis

    120 A.D.3d 1414 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    The defendant commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking relief in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from retrying him on counts two and three of the indictment on the ground that to do so would subject him to double jeopardy. In reviewing an application for prohibition, the first question is whether the issue presented is the type for which the remedy of prohibition lies (see Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 568, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297 ; Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 55, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171 ; Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 89 A.D.3d 94, 102, 930 N.Y.S.2d 610 ; Matter of Vinluan v. Doyle, 60 A.D.3d 237, 243, 873 N.Y.S.2d 72 ). If prohibition lies, then this Court must consider whether to exercise its discretion to grant that remedy (see Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d at 55, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171 ).

  5. Johnson v. Sackett

    109 A.D.3d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 16 times

    ” An article 78 proceeding seeking relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and is available to prevent a court from exceeding its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction (Matter of Pirro v. Angiolillo, 89 N.Y.2d 351, 355, 653 N.Y.S.2d 237, 675 N.E.2d 1189 [1996];Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297 [1988] ). “The writ does not lie as a means of seeking a collateral review of an error of law, no matter how egregious that error might be ... but only where the very jurisdiction and power of the court are in issue” (Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 55, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2d Dept. 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the court had no authority to issue this preclusion order since the records were neither discoverable nor Brady material ( Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 [1963] ). It is undisputed that the People did not have the complainant's records and did not know where he had been treated ( see People v. Hayes, 17 N.Y.3d 46, 926 N.Y.S.2d 382, 950 N.E.2d 118 [2011],cert.

  6. Dow v. Tomei

    107 A.D.3d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

    The remedy of prohibition generally lies when a court or an officer acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction or exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction ( seeCPLR 7803[2]; Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297;Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 352, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170;Matter of Steingut v. Gold, 42 N.Y.2d 311, 315, 397 N.Y.S.2d 765, 366 N.E.2d 854;Matter of State of New York v. King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 62, 364 N.Y.S.2d 879, 324 N.E.2d 351;Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 54, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171). To warrant the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, it is not enough that the court made a mere legal error.

  7. Heggen v. Sise

    174 A.D.3d 1115 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and, in cases involving the exercise of judicial authority, "is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court ... acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers" ( Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297 [1988] ; see Matter of Soares v. Herrick, 20 N.Y.3d 139, 145, 957 N.Y.S.2d 664, 981 N.E.2d 260 [2012] ; Matter of Getman v. Bernier, 119 A.D.3d 1059, 1060, 988 N.Y.S.2d 506 [2014] ). Respondent had jurisdiction over the criminal action against Mercer (seeMatter of Jacobs v. Altman, 69 N.Y.2d 733, 735, 512 N.Y.S.2d 361, 504 N.E.2d 688 [1987] ; Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 55, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2012] ) and was empowered to preclude Doyle from testifying about matters protected by the attorney-client privilege (seePeople v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84–85, 550 N.Y.S.2d 612, 549 N.E.2d 1183 [1989] ; People v. Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335, 343, 456 N.Y.S.2d 694, 442 N.E.2d 1205 [1982], cert denied 460 U.S. 1047, 103 S.Ct. 1448, 75 L.Ed.2d 803 [1983] ). Petitioner's core complaint is that respondent erred in determining the scope of that privilege, and she may be correct (see e.g.People v. Kinder, 126 A.D.2d 60, 63, 512 N.Y.S.2d 597 [1987], lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 649, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1042, 512 N.E.2d 568 [1987] ).

  8. Whyte v. Nassau Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office

    139 A.D.3d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    The petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to prohibit the respondents from retrying him. “Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy” which may be issued “only when a court ... acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction in a matter of ... which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” (see Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 89 A.D.3d 94, 101, 930 N.Y.S.2d 610 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Soares v. Herrick, 20 N.Y.3d 139, 145, 957 N.Y.S.2d 664, 981 N.E.2d 260 ; Matter of Haggerty v. Himelein, 89 N.Y.2d 431, 435, 654 N.Y.S.2d 705, 677 N.E.2d 276 ; Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297 ; Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 54, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171 ). “The primary function of prohibition is to prevent ‘an arrogation of power in violation of a person's rights, particularly constitutional rights' ” (Matter of Vinluan v. Doyle, 60 A.D.3d 237, 244, 873 N.Y.S.2d 72, quoting Matter of Nicholson v. State Commn. on Jud. Conduct, 50 N.Y.2d 597, 606, 431 N.Y.S.2d 340, 409 N.E.2d 818 ), and is, therefore, the “traditional remedy” where a defendant seeks protection against double jeopardy (Matter of Kraemer v. County Ct. of Suffolk County, 6 N.Y.2d 363, 365, 189 N.Y.S.2d 878, 160 N.E.2d 633 ; see Matter of Enright v. Siedlecki, 59 N.Y.2d 195, 198, 205 n. 1, 464 N.Y.S.2d 418, 451 N.E.2d 176 ; Matter of Di Lorenzo v. Murtagh, 36 N.Y.2d 306, 309–310, 367 N.Y.S.2d 761, 327 N.E.2d 805 ; see also Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 89 A.D.3d at 102–103, 930 N.Y.S.2d 610 ). In general, “double jeopardy will bar a retrial when a mistrial is granted over the defendant's objection, unless the mistrial is granted ‘as the product of manifest necessity’ ” (P

  9. Jordan v. Levine

    116 A.D.3d 1043 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, 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 N.Y.2d 564, 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297;see Matter of Robinson v. Spinner, 101 A.D.3d 1130, 956 N.Y.S.2d 502). “Prohibition will not lie, however, simply to correct trial errors” (Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d at 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297;see Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 353, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170) and may not be employed as a means of seeking collateral review of mere trial errors of substantive law or procedure, no matter how egregious the error might be ( see Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d at 353, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170;Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 55, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171). “The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought” (Matter of Turansky v. Scheinkman, 69 A.D.3d 865, 866, 895 N.Y.S.2d 435;see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16, 439 N.Y.S.2d 882, 422 N.E.2d 542;Matter of Uzamere v. Sunshine, 56 A.D.3d 787, 868 N.Y.S.2d 139). Mandamus will not lie if the action sought to be compelled involves an exercise of discretion or reasoned judgment ( see Matter of Gonzalez v. Village of Port Chester, 109 A.D.3d 614, 615, 970 N.Y.S.2d 600).

  10. Hci Distribution, Inc. v. N.Y. State Police

    110 A.D.3d 1297 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 7 times

    Ohserhase Manufacturing (the seller of the cigarettes at issue here) and Jacobs Tobacco Company, both of which manufacture and sell their own tobacco brands on the St. Regis Mohawk Indian Reservation, were granted permission by this Court to file an amicus curiae brief on appeal. Pursuant to well-established law, a CPLR article 78 proceeding for a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy ( see Matter of B.T. Prods. v. Barr, 44 N.Y.2d 226, 231, 405 N.Y.S.2d 9, 376 N.E.2d 171 [1978];Matter of New York State Health Facilities Assn., Inc. v. Sheehan, 100 A.D.3d 1086, 1087, 953 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2012],lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 853, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 72184 [2013] ) that “lies only where there is a clear legal right to such relief, and only when [the body or officer involved] acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction in a matter ... over which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” (Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 103 A.D.3d 45, 54, 957 N.Y.S.2d 171 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Soares v. Herrick, 20 N.Y.3d 139, 144–145, 957 N.Y.S.2d 664, 981 N.E.2d 260 [2012];Matter of Morgenthau v. Erlbaum, 59 N.Y.2d 143, 147, 464 N.Y.S.2d 392, 451 N.E.2d 150 [1983],cert. denied464 U.S. 993, 104 S.Ct. 486, 78 L.Ed.2d 682 [1983];Matter of Dondi v. Jones, 40 N.Y.2d 8, 13, 386 N.Y.S.2d 4, 351 N.E.2d 650 [1976];Matter of McLaughlin v. Eidens, 292 A.D.2d 712, 713, 740 N.Y.S.2d 147 [2002];see alsoCPLR 7803[2] ). Even where such a proceeding is permissible, the court has the discretion to deny the issuance of a writ of prohibition after considering such factors as “ ‘the gravity of the harm caused by the excess of power, the availability or unavailability of an adequate remedy on appeal or at law or in equity and the remedial effectiveness of prohibition if such an adequate remedy does not exist’ ” (Matter of Soares v. Herrick, 20 N.Y.3d at 145, 957 N.Y.S.2d 664, 981 N.E.2d 260, quoting Matter of Dondi v. Jones