Case Name: In the Matter of Christopher C., Petitioner, v. Charles D. Wood, Justice of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-11-19
Citations: 122 A.D.3d 843
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Christopher C., Petitioner, v Charles D. Wood, Justice of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 843–844

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Christopher C., Petitioner, v Charles D. Wood, Justice of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, et al., Respondents.
[996 NYS2d 346]

Opinion:
Motion by the respondents to recall and vacate a decision and judgment of this Court dated December 26, 2012, which granted a petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, and to deny the petition and dismiss the proceeding.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is
Ordered that the motion is granted, the decision and judgment of this Court dated December 26, 2012 (101 AD3d 1112 [2012]), is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and judgment is substituted therefor:
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of a writ of prohibition, in effect, to prohibit enforcement of a provision of an amended order of conditions dated August 2, 2011, issued by the respondent Charles D. Wood, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, which directed that, should the petitioner fail to comply with any of the other conditions imposed in that amended order of conditions "and refuse to appear for or comply with a psychiatric examination," the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health "shall apply to the court for a Temporary Confinement Order for the purpose of conducting an effective psychiatric examination in a secure facility."
Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
For the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Allen B. v Sproat (23 NY3d 364 [2014]), prohibition does not lie in this case.
Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.