IN RE: Amora Rachelle

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Amora Rachelle, petitioner, v. Kathleen M. Rice, etc., et al., respondents.

2013–07988

Decided: December 26, 2013

THOMAS A. DICKERSON, J.P. L. PRISCILLA HALL JEFFREY A. COHEN ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ. Del Vechhio & Recine, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Steven M. Del Vechhio of counsel), for petitioner. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (April Montgomery of counsel), respondent pro se.

Submitted—November 12, 2013

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a criminal action entitled People v. Rachelle, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Indictment No. 1387N/12.

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“[A] petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition must demonstrate that:  (1) a body or officer is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, (2) that body or officer is proceeding or threatening to proceed in excess of its jurisdiction and (3) petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief requested” (Matter of Garner v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 10 NY3d 358, 361–362;  see Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569;  Matter of Sedore v. Epstein, 56 AD3d 60, 63).

Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Education Law § 6514;  Matter of Willoughby v. Murphy, 54 AD3d 419).

DICKERSON, J.P., HALL, COHEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard