§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Working Families Party, Appellant,v.Fern A. Fisher,, et al., Respondents.

Brief

48 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. People v. Moreno

    70 N.Y.2d 403 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 595 times
    Holding that, absent circumstances which require recusal, this was a discretionary determination to be made by the judge alone

  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. Toker v. Pollak

    44 N.Y.2d 211 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 302 times
    Finding that statements made by defendant to District Attorney accusing plaintiff of possible commission of crime subject to qualified, not absolute privilege, and observing that statement made to police officer also subject to qualified privilege

  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 of Schumer v. Holtzman

    60 N.Y.2d 46 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 237 times
    In Matter of Schumer v Holtzman (60 N.Y.2d 46, 55), a case involving removal, we held that generally a public prosecutor should not be removed unless necessary to protect a defendant from "actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence" (id.; see also, People v Herr, 86 N.Y.2d 638; People v Jackson, supra).

  8. Matter Morgenthau v. Erlbaum

    59 N.Y.2d 143 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 232 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).

  9. La Rocca v. Lane

    37 N.Y.2d 575 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 271 times
    Upholding prohibition dismissal

  10. Matter of Dondi v. Jones

    40 N.Y.2d 8 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 251 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.