Opinion
January 16, 1990
Adjudged that 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 unauthorized powers" (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569; accord, Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 353). The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not properly lie under the instant circumstances. Moreover, even if prohibition lies and it appears that the court is acting in excess of its jurisdiction, relief is not granted as of right. The question of whether to grant prohibition is within the sound discretion of the reviewing court (see, Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, supra). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.