Opinion
2013-06-26
In the Matter of Joel GUZMAN, petitioner, v. Thomas J. SPOTA, etc., et al., respondents.
Christopher J. Cassar, P.C., Huntington, N.Y., for petitioner. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), respondent pro se.
Christopher J. Cassar, P.C., Huntington, N.Y., for petitioner. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), respondent pro se.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with an underlying criminal prosecution entitled People v. Guzman, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under indictment No. 3152C–10, on the ground, inter alia, of lack of geographic jurisdiction.
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
Although a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition is a proper means of challenging venue in a criminal action ( see Matter of Steingut v. Gold, 42 N.Y.2d 311, 315, 397 N.Y.S.2d 765, 366 N.E.2d 854), prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right to that relief ( see id.). Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to prohibition ( see Matter of Prospect v. Doyle, 44 A.D.3d 863, 863, 842 N.Y.S.2d 917;cf. Matter of Sharkey v. Town of Southold Justice Ct., 71 A.D.3d 1030, 1030, 896 N.Y.S.2d 883).