From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martynov v. Ingram

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 27, 2012
96 A.D.3d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-06-27

In the Matter of Marat MARTYNOV, petitioner, v. John G. INGRAM, etc., et al., respondents.

Douglas G. Rankin, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent John G. Ingram.


Douglas G. Rankin, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent John G. Ingram.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ann Bordley and Cyril Thomas of counsel), respondent pro se.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit John G. Ingram, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from enforcing an order dated March 6, 2012, in a criminal action entitled People v. Martynov, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment No. 199/10, which disqualified the petitioner's attorney as defense counsel in that action.

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 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).

*883The extraordinary remedy of a writ of prohibition does not lie to seek collateral review of the issue of disqualification of the petitioner's attorney ( see Matter of Lipari v. Owens, 70 N.Y.2d 731, 733, 519 N.Y.S.2d 958, 514 N.E.2d 378;Matter of Murray v. Hudson, 43 A.D.3d 936, 841 N.Y.S.2d 645).

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


Summaries of

Martynov v. Ingram

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 27, 2012
96 A.D.3d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Martynov v. Ingram

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Marat MARTYNOV, petitioner, v. John G. INGRAM, etc., et…

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

Date published: Jun 27, 2012

Citations

96 A.D.3d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 5176
946 N.Y.S.2d 882