Legal Opinion · Dissent

Holtzman v. Goldman

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 26, 1988Published

1DissentBellacosa, J.

I would affirm the Appellate Division’s denial of prohibition. The extraordinary writ does not lie and should not discretionarily issue in the first instance from this court, even if it did lie.

Former Chief Judge Charles D. Breitel warned in his unanimous opinion in Matter of State of New York v King (36 NY2d 59, 65): "Were the court to conclude otherwise than to reject this unsound and novel extension of the extraordinary ancient remedies of prohibition and mandamus, it might be a credit to man’s ingenuity but a disabling discredit to the jurisprudence.” His prophecy has come to pass. The…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Rush v. MordueNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Fauntleroy v. LumSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  3. MATTER OF STATE OF NY v. KingNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  4. La Rocca v. LaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  5. Dondi v. JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1976

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API