From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D.T. v. Axelrod

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1986
124 A.D.2d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

November 10, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.


Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and writ dismissed. Memorandum: While the issue presented on this appeal may have become moot, the significance of the issue and the frequency of its recurrence require that we address it in order to prevent repetition of the practice involved (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707). Special Term erred as a matter of law in granting a writ prohibiting a scheduled administrative hearing. The courts have consistently held that a writ of prohibition should not issue to challenge a nonfinal ruling of an Administrative Hearing Officer (see, John P. v Axelrod, 105 A.D.2d 1061; Matter of Whalen v Slocum, 84 A.D.2d 956). "Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy to be invoked only where a clear right to relief is established and the action taken or threatened is clearly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction" (Matter of Rainka v Whalen, 73 A.D.2d 731, 732, affd 51 N.Y.2d 973; Matter of Bloom v Clyne, 69 A.D.2d 956). Here the Hearing Officer did not exceed his jurisdiction in refusing to grant an adjournment and his determination is not subject to review until after a final determination has been rendered (see, Matter of State of New York v King, 36 N.Y.2d 59).


Summaries of

D.T. v. Axelrod

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1986
124 A.D.2d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

D.T. v. Axelrod

Case Details

Full title:D.T., Respondent, v. DAVID AXELROD, as Commissioner of Health of the State…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 10, 1986

Citations

124 A.D.2d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

In Matter of Massi v. Flynn

Therefore, if this matter is viewed purely as a disciplinary issue, Chief Flynn's actions are not subject to…