Matter of Ruiz v Goord
2007 NY Slip Op 03703 [39 AD3d 866]
April 24, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, June 6, 2007


In the Matter of Jose Ruiz, Petitioner,
v
Glenn S. Goord et al., Respondents. Richard A. Brown, Proposed Additional Respondent.

[*1] Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for petitioner.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. Keane and Sunita Kini-Tandon of counsel), for respondents.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (William H. Branigan of counsel), proposed additional respondent pro se.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Glenn S. Goord to eliminate the five-year term of post-release supervision from the petitioner's sentence, and in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Randall Eng, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from resentencing the petitioner. Motion by the respondents, in effect, to dismiss the proceeding and to vacate an interim stay granted by this Court on December 5, 2006. Cross motion by the petitioner to amend the petition to name Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Queens County, as an additional respondent.

Ordered that the respondents' motion, in effect, to dismiss the proceeding is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the petitioner's cross motion is denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding (see [*2]CPLR 7804 [b]; 506 [b]; Matter of Nolan v Lungen, 61 NY2d 788, 790; Matter of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v City of Mount Vernon, 148 AD2d 616, 618 [1989]). To the extent that the petition seeks a writ of prohibition against the respondent Randall Eng, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, the petition is purely hypothetical, as Justice Eng is not about to, nor has he threatened to, resentence the petitioner (see CPLR 7803 [2]). With respect to the respondent Glenn S. Goord, we note that a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 against that respondent must be brought in the Supreme Court (see CPLR 506). Crane, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Dillon, JJ., concur.