From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Crandall v. Harrigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 14, 1992
183 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

May 14, 1992


In this CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition, petitioner challenges respondent Schenectady County Judge's August 7, 1990 appointment of a special District Attorney to prosecute criminal charges pending against him in County Court. Specifically, petitioner alleges a lack of compliance with 22 NYCRR 200.15, which requires that the Chief Administrator of the Courts, in consultation and agreement with the Presiding Justice of the appropriate Appellate Division, designate a superior court Judge to consider an application for appointment of a special District Attorney. The contention is meritless. By administrative order dated December 18, 1989, the Chief Administrator of the Courts and the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, Third Department, designated the County Judge to hear applications for the appointment of special District Attorneys in Schenectady County during 1990. Therefore, there has been compliance with the rule. Petitioner's other arguments have been considered and found to be without merit.

Weiss, P.J., Mikoll and Crew III, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition dismissed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Crandall v. Harrigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 14, 1992
183 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Crandall v. Harrigan

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of GEORGE CRANDALL, Petitioner, v. CLIFFORD T. HARRIGAN, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 14, 1992

Citations

183 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
583 N.Y.S.2d 663