Cuomo v. Hayes

4 Citing cases

  1. Lesley T. v. D'Emic

    94 A.D.3d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    rit of 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 Oglesby v. McKinney, 7 N.Y.3d 561, 565, 825 N.Y.S.2d 431, 858 N.E.2d 1136; Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 352, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170). Although the distinction between legal errors and actions in excess of power is not always easy to determine, “abuses of power may be identified by their impact upon the entire proceeding as distinguished from an error in a proceeding itself proper” ( 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 State of New York v. King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 64, 364 N.Y.S.2d 879, 324 N.E.2d 351; Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 89 A.D.3d 94, 102–103, 930 N.Y.S.2d 610; Matter of Cuomo v. Hayes, 54 A.D.3d 855, 857, 864 N.Y.S.2d 103). Even where there is a clear act in excess of legal powers, prohibition is not granted as of right, but in the sound discretion of the reviewing court ( see Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d at 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297; Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d at 354, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170). Here, the petitioner is, in effect, contending that the Supreme Court acted in excess of its authority due to an allegedly improper legal interpretation of CPL 730.50(2).

  2. Getman v. Bernier

    119 A.D.3d 1059 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 4 times

    As such, any error in respondent's decision to hold a competency hearing would, at most, amount to a mere substantive error of law that does not justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy. “[P]rohibition 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 Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d at 353, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170;see 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 State of New York v. King, 36 N.Y.2d at 62, 364 N.Y.S.2d 879, 324 N.E.2d 351;Matter of Lesley T. v. D'Emic, 94 A.D.3d 768, 770, 941 N.Y.S.2d 282 [2012];Matter of Cuomo v. Hayes, 54 A.D.3d 855, 857–858, 864 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2008] ). The parties' remaining contentions are academic.

  3. Brown v. Blumenfeld

    103 A.D.3d 45 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 12 times
    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.

    While the District Attorney takes issue with Justice Blumenfeld's determination that the conduct of the interview pursuant to the Program constituted a violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), the District Attorney does not, nor could he properly, seek a writ of prohibition on that basis. The determination by Justice Blumenfeld that rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) was violated because a misrepresentation was made to Perez during the course of the interview would, if incorrect, merely represent a legal error for which the extraordinary remedy of prohibition is not available ( cf. Matter of Brown v. Blumenfeld, 89 A.D.3d at 103–104, 930 N.Y.S.2d 610;Matter of Cuomo v. Hayes, 54 A.D.3d 855, 858, 864 N.Y.S.2d 103 [contention that the court was “acting ultra vires as a result of its legal interpretation of a statute” did not justify invocation of writ of prohibition] ). Thus, no review is made of Justice Blumenfeld's conclusion that rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) was violated or that misrepresentations were made to Perez during the course of the interview.

  4. Liere v. ECO Dallas Bengal

    63 A.D.3d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs. "[T]he writ of prohibition . . . does not issue as of right, but only in the sound discretion of the court" ( Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 354; see Matter of Vinluan v Doyle, 60 AD3d 237; Matter of Cuomo v Hayes, 54 AD3d 855, 857). Furthermore, the writ will not lie where the party seeking it has access to another adequate legal remedy ( see Matter of Town of Huntington v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 NY2d 783, 786; Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62; Matter of Bediner v Firetog, 31 AD3d 634, 635). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition for a writ of prohibition.