New York Court of Appeals, 1981

In re Gold

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 18, 1981

54 N.Y.2d 627; 425 N.E.2d 892; 442 N.Y.S.2d 504; 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2595

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Morgenthau v. Erlbaum (N.Y. 1983)
Da Silva v. Gold (New York Supreme Court 2010)
Oglesby v. McKinney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Relin v. Connell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Hynes v. Tomei (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Washpon v. New York State District Attorney (New York Supreme Court 1995)
Kuriansky v. Seewald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Jacobs v. Altman (N.Y. 1987)
People v. Cruz (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1985)
Etheridge v. Collins (N.Y. 1984)
Baron & Vesel, P. C. v. Gammerman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Morgenthau v. Altman (N.Y. 1983)
Landmark Colony v. Board of Supervisors (New York Supreme Court 1983)
MATTER OF MULVANEY v. Dubin (N.Y. 1981)
Morgenthau v. Erlbaum (New York Supreme Court 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 of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division 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 NY2d 59, 62). 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.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fughsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.