You are here: / / HERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BROUGHT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION...
, , , ,

HERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BROUGHT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO PROHIBIT THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER PRECLUDING EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE’S PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY WAS DEEMED UNTIMELY; A WRIT OF PROHIBITION DOES NOT LIE FOR THIS PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Quirk, determined that the trial judge’s preclusion of evidence based upon the district attorney’s untimely production of discovery was not subject to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition. The petition for a writ of prohibition was brought by the then district attorney:

Granting prohibition here would constitute improper collateral interlocutory review. This point is underscored by the Legislature’s amendment of CPL 450.20 to permit the People to appeal as of right from the portion of an order dismissing an accusatory instrument or some of its counts pursuant to CPL 245.80(2). In enacting this amendment, the Legislature chose to limit the types of appeals available to the People and did not permit the People to appeal from orders granting other remedies or sanctions under CPL 245.80(2), including orders precluding evidence, regardless of whether such orders would prevent the People from prosecuting a case. Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, although the nonappealability of an order may be considered as a factor in favor of prohibition as part of the second step of the two-tiered analysis, “nonreviewability by way of appeal alone, does not provide a basis for reviewing error by collateral proceeding in the nature . . . of prohibition”  … .

Since a writ of prohibition does not lie, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition which was to prohibit the enforcement of the order of preclusion.  Matter of Rocah v McCarthy, 2026 NY Slip Op 03967, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: A writ of prohibition does not lie to prohibit the enforcement of an order precluding evidence becasue the production of discovery by the People was deemed untimely.

 

You might also like
College Had No Duty to Supervise Fraternity “Pledging” Activities
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (INADEQUATE LIGHTING), DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
HERE THE FAILURE TO OPPOSE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS DUE TO NEGLECT WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT VACATUR; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Allegations of Wrongdoing Insufficient to Support Shareholders Derivative Action Pursuant to BCL 626 (c)
IN THIS REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAS NAMED AS A BORROWER IN THE MORTGAGE (WHICH SHE SIGNED) BUT NOT IN THE NOTE; THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE MUST BE READ AS A SINGLE AGREEMENT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A “SURVIVING BORROWER” THEREBY PRECLUDING FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT PROCURED THE ABSENCE OF A WITNESS; THEREFORE THE WITNESS’S STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO MAKE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AFTER THE DEFENSE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IS DEPENDENT UPON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM WHICH INFERENCES MUST BE DRAWN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS USUALLY NOT APPROPRIATE; HERE A GARAGE DOOR CLOSED OR FELL ON PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A DEFENDANT AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER WAS NOT FOLLOWED BY THE JUDGE; SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FOR PURPOSES OF THE “RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE,” A DEFENDANT CAN BE... HERE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE...