From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Levy v. Reitz

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 4, 2014
118 A.D.3d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-06-4

In the Matter of Adam B. LEVY, etc., petitioner, v. James REITZ, et al., respondents.

Adam B. Levy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (David M. Bishop of counsel), petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Susan Anspach of counsel), for respondent James Reitz.


Adam B. Levy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (David M. Bishop of counsel), petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Susan Anspach of counsel), for respondent James Reitz.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent James Reitz, a Judge of the County Court, Putnam County, from enforcing an order dated November 14, 2013, in effect, dismissing the Superior Court Information in a criminal action entitle People v. Schepart, commencedin the Justice Court of the Town of Putnam Valley and transferred to the County Court, Putnam County, under Superior Court Information No. 261/11.

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner seeks to prohibit enforcement of an order dated November 14, 2013. This proceeding was not commenced until April 11, 2014. Accordingly, it must be dismissed as time-barred ( see Matter of Holtzman v. Marrus, 74 N.Y.2d 865, 547 N.Y.S.2d 829, 547 N.E.2d 84). DILLON, J.P., HALL, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Levy v. Reitz

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 4, 2014
118 A.D.3d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Levy v. Reitz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Adam B. LEVY, etc., petitioner, v. James REITZ, et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 4, 2014

Citations

118 A.D.3d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
118 A.D.3d 702
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4010

Citing Cases

Teixeira v. Spota

This proceeding was not commenced until March 31, 2015. Accordingly, it must be dismissed as time-barred (…

Teixeira v. Spota

This proceeding was not commenced until March 31, 2015. Accordingly, it must be dismissed as time-barred (see…