Opinion · Nylaw New York

MATTER OF ROSS v. GIACCIO, 54 N.Y.2d 810 (1981)

In the Matter of TAMAR ROSS, Respondent, v. WILLIAM GIACCIO, as Justice ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County, et al., Appellants, & HOWARD ROSS,Intervenor-Appellant., 427 N.E.2d 949 (Court of Appeals of the State of New York. 1981)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1981-09-22
Topic
general

MATTER OF ROSS v. GIACCIO, 54 N.Y.2d 810 (1981) 427 N.E.2d 949, 443 N.Y.S.2d 652 In the Matter of TAMAR ROSS, Respondent, v. WILLIAM GIACCIO, as Justice ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County, et al., Appellants, and HOWARD ROSS,Intervenor-Appellant.Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Decided September 22, 1981 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Robert S.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF ROSS v. GIACCIO, 54 N.Y.2d 810 (1981). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF ROSS v. GIACCIO,54 N.Y.2d 810(1981)
427 N.E.2d 949,443 N.Y.S.2d 652
In the Matter of TAMAR ROSS, Respondent, v. WILLIAM GIACCIO, as Justice of
the Supreme Court, Queens County, et al., Appellants, and HOWARD ROSS,
Intervenor-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Decided September 22, 1981
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department.Page 811
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Robert S. Hammerof counsel), for appellants.Joel S. Sankelfor intervenor-appellant.Alexander Potruchfor respondent.
On summary consideration, order reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition is not available under the circumstances of this case where there has been no act in excess of jurisdiction but only an alleged error which can be adequately reviewed on a direct appeal.

Concur: Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER. Taking no part: Chief Judge COOKE.