MATTER OF HOLTZMAN v. Marrus
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- In the Matter of Eric Smith v. Richard A. Brown (N.Y. 2014)
- Matter of Solny v. Chun (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of Hyra v. Jacobellis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Teixeira v. Spota (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Levy v. Reitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Levy v. Reitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- DOORLEY, SANDRA J. v. DEMARCO, HON. JOHN L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Smith v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Smith v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Doorley v. DeMarco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Doorley v. DeMarco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Working Families Party v. Fisher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Working Families Party v. Fisher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Johnson v. Griffin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Barron v. Colabella (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Pavone v. Wood (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Brown v. Schulman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Taub v. Committee on Professional Standards (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
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 and the petition dismissed.
The court had jurisdiction to try the case and the only question is whether it had the power to issue the preclusion order. Even if prohibition were available to challenge such an order the proceeding would have to be commenced within four months of the date on which the order became final and binding (CPLR 217). Because the order in this case went into effect immediately, the petition served on Justice Marrus more than four months after that date was untimely (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 566, at 793).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
*867 Judgment reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.