Opinion
February 6, 1992
Motion by the respondent Justice Browne to dismiss the petition.
Ordered that the motion to dismiss is granted; and it is further,
Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, 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 N.Y.2d 564, 569; accord, Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 353); the "extraordinary remedy of prohibition is never available merely to correct or prevent trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however grievous" (La Rocca v Lane, 37 N.Y.2d 575, 579), nor is it available if there exists an adequate remedy, by way of appeal or otherwise (Matter of Molea v. Marasco, 64 N.Y.2d 718, 720; Matter of Morgenthau v. Erlbaum, 59 N.Y.2d 143). In the instant case, the denial of the petitioner's application to preclude the People from introducing any evidence concerning the alleged acts and statements of the codefendants which may have occurred in his absence, would be subject to review on appeal. As the petitioner therefore has an adequate remedy at law, prohibition may not be granted. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.