Haggerty v. Himelein, 89 N.Y.2d 431 (1997)
r
r
The Attorney General’s prosecutorial authority is limited to specific statutory grants and does not extend to intervening in local criminal matters without a formal superseder by the Governor, unless the Attorney General is merely assisting the local District Attorney without usurping their ultimate authority.
r
r
Summary
r
Following public outcry over a Grand Jury’s failure to indict suspects in a homicide case, the Cattaraugus County District Attorney requested the Attorney General’s assistance. The Attorney General appointed assistants who then presented the case to a second Grand Jury, resulting in an indictment. Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition, arguing the Attorney General lacked jurisdiction without a superseder order from the Governor. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s grant of the petition, holding that the Attorney General’s office was merely assisting the District Attorney, who retained ultimate prosecutorial authority, and thus no superseder was required.
r
r
Facts
r
Kevin King died in a mob attack in Olean, NY. The initial Grand Jury failed to indict any suspects, leading to public protest. The Cattaraugus County Legislature requested the Attorney General’s assistance, which was endorsed by the District Attorney. The Attorney General appointed Assistant Attorneys General as Assistant District Attorneys. One assistant presented the King case to a second Grand Jury, which issued a 42-count indictment against the petitioners.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Petitioners moved to dismiss the indictment in County Court and simultaneously filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division seeking a writ of prohibition. The Appellate Division granted the petition, finding the Attorney General lacked jurisdiction without a superseder. The Attorney General and District Attorney appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and dismissed the petition.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the Attorney General exceeded his jurisdiction by assisting in the prosecution of a local criminal matter without a formal superseder order from the Governor, when the local District Attorney retained ultimate prosecutorial authority.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the Attorney General’s office merely assisted the District Attorney, who retained ultimate prosecutorial authority and the discretionary power to determine whom, whether, and how to prosecute the case. Therefore, the Attorney General did not act in excess of his jurisdiction.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals emphasized that prohibition is an extraordinary remedy available only when a body acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction and the petitioner demonstrates a clear legal right to relief. The Court acknowledged its prior holdings that the Attorney General’s prosecutorial authority is limited to specific statutory grants. However, the Court distinguished the instant case, finding that the Attorney General’s office was not exercising the prosecutorial authority of that office, but rather assisting the local District Attorney. The court reasoned that