Lipari v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 733 (1988)

r
r

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and is not available to review a trial court’s determination regarding the timely and proper trial of a case, especially when an adequate remedy at law, such as appeal, exists.

r
r

Summary

r

Lipari, facing charges of attempted murder and assault, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from removing his retained counsel due to repeated delays caused by counsel’s unavailability. The New York Court of Appeals held that prohibition was inappropriate in this case. The Court reasoned that determinations regarding the trial schedule are within the trial court’s jurisdiction, and any alleged error, even of constitutional magnitude, could be reviewed on direct appeal. Thus, prohibition, an extraordinary remedy, was not warranted.

r
r

Facts

r

Lipari was arraigned on charges of attempted murder and assault in September 1985.

r

Over the following 22 months, the case was adjourned 19 times, with 18 of those adjournments due to the unavailability of Lipari’s defense counsel.

r

On eight scheduled court dates, Lipari’s counsel failed to appear.

r

The case was scheduled for trial twice, with the second date designated as the