Opinion
April 24, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County.
Adjudged that the petition is denied and 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, cert denied 424 U.S. 968), 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, cert denied 464 U.S. 993). In the instant case, the court's determination, which directed that certain bonds be held for execution by the Federal Government and denied a demand for an attorney's charging lien, is subject to review on appeal. Since the petitioner, therefore, has an adequate remedy at law, prohibition may not be granted (see, Matter of Calandrillo v Browne, 180 A.D.2d 658). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.