Legal Opinion · Dissent

Soares v. Herrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided August 4, 2011Published

1Dissent

Rose, J. (dissenting).

We respectfully dissent. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition “should be available only when a court exceeds its jurisdiction or authorized power in such a manner as to implicate the legality of the entire proceeding” (Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 353 [1986]). It is not available to correct procedural or substantive errors of law (see Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8, 15 [1976]). In our view, respondent County Judge of Albany County (hereinafter respondent) did not exceed his jurisdiction or authorized powers by disqualifying petitioner, a District…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Young v. United States Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Rush v. MordueNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Holtzman v. GoldmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. MATTER OF STATE OF NY v. KingNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  5. La Rocca v. LaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1975

14 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