From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Holtzman v. Marrus

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 17, 1989
74 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. 1989)

Opinion

Argued September 14, 1989

Decided October 17, 1989

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

Alan D. Marrus, appellant pro se. Robert S. Dean and Philip L. Weinstein for Geraldo Charry, appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Janet M. Berk, Barbara D. Underwood and Roseann B. MacKechnie of counsel), respondent pro se.


MEMORANDUM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the petition dismissed.

The court had jurisdiction to try the case and the only question is whether it had the power to issue the preclusion order. Even if prohibition were available to challenge such an order the proceeding would have to be commenced within four months of the date on which the order became final and binding (CPLR 217). Because the order in this case went into effect immediately, the petition served on Justice Marrus more than four months after that date was untimely (see, Siegel, N Y Prac § 566, at 793).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Judgment reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Holtzman v. Marrus

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 17, 1989
74 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. 1989)
Case details for

Matter of Holtzman v. Marrus

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, Respondent, v. ALAN MARRUS, as a…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 17, 1989

Citations

74 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 838
547 N.E.2d 93

Citing Cases

Smith v. Brown

We now reverse. A four-month limitations period applies to CPLR article 78 prohibition proceedings ( see CPLR…

Working Families Party v. Fisher

“An article 78 proceeding must be brought ‘within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes…