Gold v. Gartenstein
| Decision Date | 18 June 1981 |
| Citation | 54 N.Y.2d 627,425 N.E.2d 892,442 N.Y.S.2d 504 |
| Parties | , 425 N.E.2d 892 In the Matter of Eugene GOLD, as District Attorney of Kings County, Respondent, v. Stanley GARTENSTEIN, as Judge of the Criminal Court, Respondent, and Darry P., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Bennett M. Lincoff and Caesar D. Cirigliano, New York City, for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty. (Lois M. Raff, Brooklyn, of counsel), respondent, pro se.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. , in his statutory capacity pursuant to section 71 of the Executive Law.
The order of the Appellate Division, 74 A.D.2d 848, 425 N.Y.S.2d 970, should be reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed. It was error for Supreme Court to have entertained the application for article 78 relief in the nature of prohibition since that extraordinary remedy may ordinarily be employed only when a court acts or threatens to act "without jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction" (Matter of State of New York v. King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 62, 364 N.Y.S.2d 879, 324 N.E.2d 351). Our determination today should not be read as an approval of respondent's conclusion that CPL 340.40 (subd. 7) is unconstitutional, for we merely hold that the extraordinary writ of prohibition is an inappropriate means to address the claimed error in the ruling at Criminal Court in this instance.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cruz
...Gold v. Gartenstein, 100 Misc.2d 253, 418 N.Y.S.2d 852, aff'd 74 A.D.2d 848, 425 N.Y.S.2d 970, rev'd on other grounds 54 N.Y.2d 627, 442 N.Y.S.2d 504, 425 N.E.2d 892 (1981). The Court holds that the Reclassification Law does not deny equal protection to the Collateral Consequences Finally, ......
-
Hynes v. Tomei
...prohibition is not a proper method to determine the constitutionality of a statute (see, e.g., Matter of Gold v. Gartenstein, 54 N.Y.2d 627, 442 N.Y.S.2d 504, 425 N.E.2d 892). Accordingly, so much of the People's petition as sought a writ of prohibition is denied. However, the People's alte......
-
Morgenthau v. Erlbaum
...to attack a criminal court's ruling that a statute denying a trial by jury is unconstitutional (see Matter of Gold v. Gartenstein, 54 N.Y.2d 627, 442 N.Y.S.2d 504, 425 N.E.2d 892). Special Term granted the motion to convert and declared that CPL 340.40 (subd. 2) is constitutional. The Appel......
-
Baron and Vesel, P.C. v. Gammerman
...any order to be entered (Matter of State of N.Y. v. King, 36 N.Y.2d 59, 364 N.Y.S.2d 879, 324 N.E.2d 351; Matter of Gold v. Gartenstein, 54 N.Y.2d 627, 442 N.Y.S.2d 504, 425 N.E.2d 872). The statute provides that the remedy may not be had were relief can be adequately obtained by appeal (CP......