Matter of Pugach v. Supreme Court, 38 N.Y.2d 247 (1975)

Prohibition, an extraordinary remedy, does not lie to restrain a court from exercising jurisdiction it possesses, especially when an adequate remedy at law, such as appeal, exists.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a prohibition proceeding was improvidently entertained because the habeas corpus court possessed jurisdiction to hear the writ and order a hearing in the sentencing court. Prohibition is inappropriate when the court has jurisdiction and an adequate remedy, like appeal, is available. The Court emphasized the unseemliness of using a summary proceeding to restrain habeas corpus proceedings. Additionally, the issue was mooted by a subsequent hearing finding the prisoner competent at the time of trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment but on narrower grounds, avoiding the merits of the habeas corpus petition.

Facts

Pugach, a prisoner, sought a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court determined that a hearing was needed to determine if Pugach was competent to stand trial in 1962 and ordered the sentencing court to conduct the hearing. The Supreme Court then initiated a prohibition proceeding to prevent the habeas corpus court from exercising jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court initiated an Article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition to prevent the habeas corpus court from ordering a hearing. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, but on the limited ground that it was inappropriate to entertain the prohibition proceeding in the first place, given the habeas corpus court’s jurisdiction and the availability of appeal. After the Appellate Division’s decision, the Supreme Court in Bronx County conducted the postconviction hearing and found Pugach competent to stand trial in 1962.

Issue(s)

Whether prohibition is an appropriate remedy to prevent a habeas corpus court from ordering a hearing within its jurisdiction.

Holding

No, because the habeas corpus court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ and order a hearing, and an appeal was available. Prohibition is only appropriate to restrain a court from acting without jurisdiction or exceeding its powers.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the habeas corpus court had jurisdiction under CPLR 7004 and the power to order a hearing by the sentencing court, citing People ex rel. Prosser v. Martin, 306 N.Y. 710, 711-712. Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy used only when a court acts without jurisdiction or exceeds its powers, as stated in Matter of Proskin v. County Ct. of Albany County, 30 Y 2d 15, 18. The Court emphasized the availability of appeal under CPLR 7011 as an adequate remedy, making prohibition inappropriate, citing Matter of Lee v. County Ct. of Erie County, 27 Y 2d 432, 436-437. The court found it “unseemly to invoke a summary proceeding to restrain proceedings under the constitutional writ” of habeas corpus. Furthermore, the issue became moot because the sentencing court held the hearing and found Pugach competent. The Court stated, “Prohibition does not ordinarily lie if there be an adequate remedy by way of appeal.”