Case ID: ad3d_132/html/0764-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Michael Krichevsky, Petitioner, v Charles F. Sanders et al., Respondents. Lidya Radin et al., Proposed Intervenors.
    [17 NYS3d 661]
   Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Bernadette Bayne, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from presiding over an action entitled Krichevsky v Levoritz, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 19478/13; motion by the petitioner, inter alia, to compel the Assistant Attorney General Michelle R. Lambert and the respondent Noah Nunberg to “certify their paperwork” and to impose sanctions upon them pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, separate motions by nonparties Lidya Radin and Zev Yourman, inter alia, for leave to intervene in the proceeding, and cross motion by the respondents L’Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP, Noah Nunberg, Marian Rice, Candice B. Ratner, and Elaine Sabino, inter alia, to impose sanctions upon the petitioner pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the motions and the cross motion are denied; and it is further,

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

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to relief in the nature of prohibition.

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.