Kavanagh v. Vogt
In the Matter of Michael Kavanagh, as District Attorney of the County of Ulster v. Francis J. Vogt, as County Judge of Ulster County
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The Appellate Division properly determined that the extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie unless *679 a court acts in excess of its jurisdiction or its authorized powers (La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575 , cert den 424 US 968 ). The County Court did not exceed its jurisdiction or its authorized powers in disqualifying the petitioner, a District Attorney, and his staff from prosecuting certain indictments due to a conflict of interest created by the presence of a former Assistant Public Defender in that office (see People v Shinkle, 51 NY2d 417 ). Whether disqualification was warranted pursuant to People v Shinkle (supra) in this particular case is a question of law not re viewable by way of prohibition.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 15 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.