Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: GARY POOLER, PETITIONER, v. HON. JOHN J. ARK, RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506[b] [1] ) to vacate and set aside an order of respondent. The order granted a monetary judgment against petitioner.
It is hereby ORDERED that said petition is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this original proceeding in this Court pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to vacate and set aside an order of respondent that granted a monetary judgment against him. The order was entered against him in connection with a lawsuit brought against a corporation of which petitioner was the president and sole shareholder. Petitioner alleged that he was not named as a party in that lawsuit and was not summoned before Supreme Court, and thus respondent had no power to grant relief against him (see generally Oakley v. Albany Med Ctr., 39 AD3d 1016, 1017 [3d Dept 2007]; Hartloff v. Hartloff, 296 A.D.2d 849, 849–850 [4th Dept 2002] ).
We conclude that petitioner is seeking relief in the nature of prohibition, but he has not demonstrated the requisite clear legal right to that relief (see Matter of Pirro v. Angiolillo, 89 N.Y.2d 351, 356 [1996] ). Such relief is available when a court “acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Pirro, 89 N.Y.2d at 355), and “[t]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition is never available merely to correct or prevent trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however grievous” (La Rocca v. Lane, 37 N.Y.2d 575, 579 [1975], cert denied 424 U.S. 968 [1976] ). Prohibition is “ordinarily unavailable if a ‘grievance can be redressed by ordinary proceedings at law or in equity or merely to prevent an error which may be readily corrected on appeal’ “ (Matter of Echevarria v. Marks, 14 NY3d 198, 221 [2010], cert denied 562 U.S. 947 [2010] ). The decision whether to grant prohibition is within the discretion of the court (see Matter of Soares v. Herrick, 20 NY3d 139, 145 [2012]; Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 354 [1986] ).
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: OP 17–00987
Decided: December 22, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)