Matter of Rachelle v Rice
2013 NY Slip Op 08638 [112 AD3d 942]
December 26, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, January 29, 2014


In the Matter of Amora Rachelle, Petitioner,
v
Kathleen M. Rice et al., Respondents.

[*1] Del Vechhio & Recine, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Steven M. Del Vechhio of counsel), for petitioner.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (April Montgomery of counsel), respondent pro se.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a criminal action entitled People v Rachelle, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under indictment No. 1387N/12.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

"[A] petitioner seeking a writ of prohibition must demonstrate that: (1) a body or officer is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, (2) that body or officer is proceeding or threatening to proceed in excess of its jurisdiction and (3) petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief requested" (Matter of Garner v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 10 NY3d 358, 361-362 [2008]; see Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; Matter of Sedore v Epstein, 56 AD3d 60, 63 [2008]).

Here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Education Law § 6514; Matter of Willoughby v Murphy, 54 AD3d 419 [2008]). Dickerson, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.