Recently, in Brown v. Blumenfeld,1 the Appellate Division, Second Department, denied an Article 78 petition brought by the District Attorney of Queens County. The District Attorney sought to prohibit a justice of the Supreme Court from determining whether to grant a defendant’s motion to suppress statements based on the prosecutor’s alleged violation of certain rules of professional conduct in obtaining those statements. The Second Department held that, under the circumstances, prohibition was not an appropriate vehicle for reviewing in advance of a ruling on a motion to suppress statements, the suppression court’s consideration of the rules of professional conduct in reaching its decision.
While it is fair to say that Article 78 proceedings are denied more often than not, they do play a useful, though limited role in the criminal justice system. This column will discuss successful uses of Article 78 proceedings in pending criminal cases.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
