Matter of Grady v Greller
2011 NY Slip Op 08149 [89 AD3d 844]
November 9, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, January 4th, 2012


In the Matter of William V. Grady, Petitioner,
v
Stephen L. Greller et al., Respondents.

—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), petitioner pro se.

Malvina Nathanson, New York, N.Y., for respondent Cheryl Santiago.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Stephen L. Greller, a Judge of the County Court, Dutchess County, from proceeding with a hearing in a criminal action entitled People v Santiago, pending in the County Court, Dutchess County, under indictment No. 3/08.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

"Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers" (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.