New York Court of Appeals, 1987

Jacobs v. Altman

New York Court of Appeals · Decided January 20, 1987

69 N.Y.2d 733; 504 N.E.2d 688; 512 N.Y.S.2d 361; 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15067

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Winters v. NYCDOC (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
Matter of Heggen v. Sise (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
In re Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
In re Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Echevarria v. Marks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Oglesby v. McKinney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Schroedel v. LaBuda (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Adelphi University v. Board of Regents (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Johnson v. Hunter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Whitehurst v. Kavanagh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Sommer v. Harrington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Moore v. Mallon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Rodney E. (N.Y. 1991)
People v. Rodney E. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Holtzman v. Goldman (N.Y. 1988)
Mars Associates, Inc. v. Palmer (New York Supreme Court 1988)
Darvin M. v. Jacobs (N.Y. 1987)
Agoney v. Feinberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Sommer v. Morton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)

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 judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing the petition should be affirmed.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right, and only when a court acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction (Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352; Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62). Even in those rare circumstances where an arrogation of power would justify engaging the judicial process in collateral intervention and *735summary correction, the writ of prohibition does not issue as of right but only in the sound discretion of the court (Matter of Rush v Mordue, supra, at p 354; La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 579). Plainly the court had jurisdiction to entertain the criminal actions before it and the authority to issue orders relating to the disposition of those actions. Prohibition is generally not available to collaterally review an arguable error of law committed in a pending criminal action (Matter of Gold v Gartenstein, 54 NY2d 627; Matter of State of New York v King, supra) or to challenge an illegal sentence (see, People ex rel. Pritchard v Harris, 82 AD2d 842, lv denied 54 NY2d 608). Our determination today should not be read as passing in any way upon the merits of petitioner’s contention that the court has acted improperly, for we merely hold that the extraordinary writ of prohibition is an inappropriate means to address the claimed error.

Nor is it appropriate in the procedural posture of this case to convert this special proceeding to a declaratory judgment action where the District Attorney’s office, an integral participant in the underlying criminal actions (see, e.g., CPL 220.10) and an entity with a significant interest in this proceeding, is not before the court (CPLR 103 [c]; cf. Matter of Morgenthau v Roberts, 65 NY2d 749, 751; Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, cert denied 464 US 993).

Chief Judge Wachtler, and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Bellacosa taking no part.

Judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.