From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Charles v. De Rosa

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 5, 2013
107 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-06-5

In the Matter of Dwight CHARLES, petitioner, v. Nicholas DE ROSA, etc., et al., respondents.

Dwight Charles, Comstock, N.Y., petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Andrew H. Meier of counsel), for respondent Nicholas De Rosa.


Dwight Charles, Comstock, N.Y., petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Andrew H. Meier of counsel), for respondent Nicholas De Rosa.
Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), respondent pro se.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Nicholas De Rosa, a Judge of the County Court, Orange County, from conducting further proceedings adverse to the petitioner in a criminal action entitled People v. Charles, pending in the County Court, Orange County, under Indictment No. 11–0501, and to prohibit the respondent Francis D. Phillips II from prosecuting the petitioner for criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (16 counts) in that criminal action, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

ORDERED that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022(b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, 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 Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 352, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and ROMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Charles v. De Rosa

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 5, 2013
107 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Charles v. De Rosa

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Dwight CHARLES, petitioner, v. Nicholas DE ROSA, etc., et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 5, 2013

Citations

107 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3997
965 N.Y.S.2d 893