40 Cited authorities

  1. Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman

    71 N.Y.2d 564 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 696 times
    Finding that the plain language of the statute authorizing a trial order of dismissal "manifests the Legislature's intention only to grant the court the power to rule on insufficiency, not the power to terminate the proceedings by default"
  2. Matter of Rush v. Mordue

    68 N.Y.2d 348 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 676 times
    In Matter of Rush v Mordue (68 NY2d 348, supra) and Matter of Brockway v Monroe (59 NY2d 179), the Court of Appeals recognized that prohibition would lie where the case involves a claim that a prosecution is improper because it is barred by immunity.
  3. Matter Legal Aid v. Scheinman

    53 N.Y.2d 12 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 718 times
    In Scheinman, because of the procedural posture of the case, we did not reach the issue of the constitutionality of trial before a lay Judge when a defendant facing incarceration requests, and is denied, removal under CPL 170.25. (Matter of Legal Aid Soc. v Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16, supra.)
  4. M. C. Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Texas Foundries, Inc.

    424 U.S. 968 (1976)   Cited 196 times

    No. 75-1083. March 22, 1976, OCTOBER TERM, 1975. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 517 F. 2d 1059.

  5. Cooke v. United States

    267 U.S. 517 (1925)   Cited 680 times
    Reversing summary contempt conviction against attorney for a letter he wrote to the court demanding recusal and questioning the dignity of the court
  6. Matter of State of N.Y. v. King

    36 N.Y.2d 59 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 323 times
    In King, then-Chief Judge Breitel, writing for a unanimous Court, concluded that prohibition did not lie to preempt an egregious, prejudicial and unreviewable error of law involving a trial court grant of excessive peremptory challenges in a criminal action (id., at 61-62).
  7. Matter Morgenthau v. Erlbaum

    59 N.Y.2d 143 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 230 times
    In Erlbaum, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that declaratory relief may not be sought by a criminal defendant for the purpose of “attacking a criminal court's interlocutory ruling” (Erlbaum, 59 N.Y.2d at 151–152, 464 N.Y.S.2d 392, 451 N.E.2d 150).
  8. La Rocca v. Lane

    37 N.Y.2d 575 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 270 times
    Upholding prohibition dismissal
  9. Matter of Dondi v. Jones

    40 N.Y.2d 8 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 250 times
    In Matter of Dondi v Jones (40 N.Y.2d 8, 13, supra), we recognized that prohibition would be an appropriate remedy if it were found that a Special Prosecutor was exceeding the authority conferred upon him through Executive Order by prosecuting a particular criminal defendant under an existing indictment.
  10. People v. Di Falco

    44 N.Y.2d 482 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 212 times
    Noting "breadth and importance of the duties placed upon the District Attorney in Grand Jury proceedings"