Summary
In Matter of Kavanagh v Vogt (58 N.Y.2d 678, affg 88 A.D.2d 1049, supra), we held that the extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie to review a County Court's action in disqualifying an attorney.
Summary of this case from Matter AbramsOpinion
Decided November 18, 1982
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department.
Michael Kavanagh, District Attorney ( Marsha Solomon of counsel), appellant pro se. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Peter J. Dooley of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The Appellate Division properly determined that the extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie unless a court acts in excess of its jurisdiction or its authorized powers ( La Rocca v Lane, 37 N.Y.2d 575, cert den 424 U.S. 968). The County Court did not exceed its jurisdiction or its authorized powers in disqualifying the petitioner, a District Attorney, and his staff from prosecuting certain indictments due to a conflict of interest created by the presence of a former Assistant Public Defender in that office (see People v Shinkle, 51 N.Y.2d 417). Whether disqualification was warranted pursuant to People v Shinkle ( supra) in this particular case is a question of law not reviewable by way of prohibition.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [g]), judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.