Matter of Hassan v. Johnson, 96 N.Y.2d 446 (2001)

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy available only to prevent a court from exceeding its authorized powers, not to correct mere procedural errors.

Summary

This case addresses the scope of the remedy of prohibition in New York. Hassan sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a court from enforcing an order regarding the order of witness presentation before a grand jury. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s decision regarding the order of witnesses was a procedural matter within its supervisory jurisdiction, not an excess of power that would justify the extraordinary remedy of prohibition. The Court emphasized that prohibition is reserved for instances where a court acts entirely without jurisdiction, not merely commits an error of law.

Facts

An individual, Hassan, was the subject of a grand jury investigation. The court ordered that the People’s witnesses be presented to the Grand Jury before Hassan, who had requested to appear pursuant to CPL 190.50 (subd 5, par [a]). Hassan sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the court from enforcing this order, arguing it was an improper exercise of the court’s authority.

Procedural History

The lower court denied Hassan’s request for a writ of prohibition. The Appellate Division affirmed that denial. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court’s order regarding the order of witness presentation before the grand jury constituted an excess of its authorized powers, thus warranting the remedy of prohibition.

Holding

No, because the order in which witnesses are presented before the Grand Jury is a matter of procedure, within the supervisory jurisdiction of the court, and does not constitute an excess of power justifying the extraordinary remedy of prohibition.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that prohibition is an extraordinary remedy reserved for instances where a court acts in excess of its jurisdiction, not merely commits an error of procedure or substantive law. The court cited prior cases, including Matter of Dondi v Jones, for the principle that the excess of power must go to “the very authority or power and, thus, jurisdiction of the officer, not to a mere mistake or ‘an error in procedure or substantive law’”. The court reasoned that the order in which witnesses are presented before the Grand Jury is a procedural matter falling within the supervisory jurisdiction of the court, which, along with the District Attorney, is a “legal advisor” of the Grand Jury (CPL 190.25, subd 6). The court distinguished this case from others where prohibition was deemed appropriate, such as Matter of Proskin v County Ct. of Albany County, where the order involved a “gross, unprecedented, and even suspect as to motivation, direction” procedural error. Here, the order requiring the People’s witnesses be presented before Hassan, who requested to appear pursuant to CPL 190.50 (subd 5, par [a]), did not rise to that level. The court explicitly stated, “The order in which witnesses are presented before the Grand Jury is a matter of procedure, within the supervisory jurisdiction of the court”. The court explicitly declined to rule on the merits of the underlying order, focusing solely on whether prohibition was the proper remedy. The practical takeaway is that attorneys challenging court orders must carefully consider whether the alleged error is jurisdictional in nature or merely a procedural or substantive error, as prohibition is only available in the former case. Attempts to use prohibition to correct ordinary errors will be unsuccessful.