From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Quackenbush v. Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 18, 1982
87 A.D.2d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

March 18, 1982


Application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, for judgment in the nature of prohibition, denied, and petition dated January 14, 1982 dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition is available only where petitioner has established a clear right to relief and where action taken or threatened is clearly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction (see, e.g., Matter of State of New York v. King, 36 N.Y.2d 59). It is further clear that prohibition does not lie to review the exercise of discretion in criminal cases ( Matter of Bloom v. Clyne, 69 A.D.2d 956) and is not available to review claimed errors of substantive or procedural law, even where constitutional issues are involved ( La Rocca v. Lane, 37 N.Y.2d 575, 580, cert den 424 U.S. 968; Matter of Bloom v. Clyne, supra). In view of these principles and, further, since the action complained of in support of the petition would be reviewable on an appeal from a judgment of conviction, this collateral proceeding does not lie. Mahoney, P.J., Sweeney, Kane, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Quackenbush v. Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 18, 1982
87 A.D.2d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Matter of Quackenbush v. Monroe

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MILTON QUACKENBUSH, Petitioner, v. DONALD H. MONROE, as…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 1982

Citations

87 A.D.2d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Trump v. Merchan

The decision whether to grant an adjournment was also within the court's sound discretion (see e.g. Schneyer…

In the Matter of Blumen v. McGann

Moreover, prohibition "will not lie as a means of seeking collateral review of mere trial errors of…