MATTER OF MULVANEY v. Dubin
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pryor v. Greenberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- O'Neill v. King (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Matter of Lisa W. v. Seine W. (Kings Family Court 2005)
- Johnson v. Torres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- In re Minott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Giordano v. Mackston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People v. Torres (New York Supreme Court 1997)
- People v. Purdon (New York County Courts 1997)
- People v. Berger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Glover (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Daly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Sharpton v. Turner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Daly (New York County Courts 1990)
- People v. Fratt (New York Supreme Court 1989)
- People v. Hunce (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1988)
- Greenberg v. Turner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Morgenthau v. Gold (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Santucci v. Rotker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. Busjit (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- People v. Minor (New York County Courts 1983)
- Feretich v. Parsons Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- People v. Miranda (New York Supreme Court 1982)
- Rossettie ex rel. Young v. Finnerty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the petition dismissed.
*669 The Appellate Division should have dismissed the petition for article 78 relief, in the nature of prohibition, to prevent Supreme Court from requiring defendant to give the prosecution a written report of his examination by a court-appointed psychiatrist. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where 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 NY2d 59, 62; Matter of Gold v Gartenstein, 54 NY2d 627, 629). It is not available, however, as a means of seeking collateral review of an error of law in a pending criminal action (Matter of State of New York v King, supra, p 62). The petition here alleges no more than such an error and, therefore, the remedy sought does not lie. The petition should have been dismissed. In light of this disposition, there is no occasion to reach the merits of defendant’s claim.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.
Judgment reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.