Opinion
September 30, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Francis, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The petition seeking a writ of prohibition was properly dismissed. "Prohibition may be maintained solely to prevent or control a body or officer acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity from proceeding or threatening to proceed without or in excess of its jurisdiction * * * and then only when the clear legal right to relief appears and, in the court's discretion, the remedy is warranted" (Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 51; see, Matter of Town of Huntington v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 N.Y.2d 783, 786). Petitioner has failed to establish a clear legal right to relief (see, Matter of Molea v. Marasco, 64 N.Y.2d 718). There is no merit to petitioner's constitutional challenge to ECL 23-0305 (8) (d); nor is there any merit to petitioner's contention that respondent acted outside the scope of its authority.