From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Springer v. McKay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2005
24 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2005-04720.

December 12, 2005.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Joseph M. McKay, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from taking any further action in a case entitled People v. Springer, pending under Kings County indictment No. 9445/01.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.


Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, 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 NY2d 564, 569; see Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought ( see Matter of Springer-Knight v. McKay, 24 AD3d 562 [decided herewith]).


Summaries of

In the Matter of Springer v. McKay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 2005
24 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

In the Matter of Springer v. McKay

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALFONSO SPRINGER, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH M. McKAY…

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

Date published: Dec 12, 2005

Citations

24 A.D.3d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
805 N.Y.S.2d 289

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Springer-Knight v. McKay

"Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and…