Matter of Holtzman v. Marrus, 547 N.E.2d 84 (NY 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Holtzman v. Marrus, 547 N.E.2d 84 (NY 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Solny v. Chun (nyappdiv, 2025-04-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Solny v. Chun
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
A four-month limitations period applies to CPLR article 78 prohibition proceedings ( see CPLR 217[1]; Matter of Holtzman v Marrus , 74 NY2d 865, 866).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Working Families Party v. Fisher
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The four-month statute of limitations has been applied to proceedings in the nature of prohibition where, as here, a single circumscribed act of power is being questioned (see Matter of Holtzman v Marrus, 74 NY2d 865, 866 [1989]; Matter of Smith v Brown, 105 AD3d 965, 966 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Working Families Party v. Fisher
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The four-month statute of limitations has been applied to proceedings in the nature of prohibition where, as here, a single circumscribed act of power is being questioned (see Matter of Holtzman v Marrus, 74 NY2d 865, 866 [1989]; Matter of Smith v Brown, 105 AD3d 965, 966 [2013]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Matter of Holtzman v Marrus, 74 NY2d 865, 866 [1989]), the petitioner herein is seeking a writ prohibiting his continued prosecution on the underlying indictment.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Brown
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Matter of Holtzman v Marrus, 74 NY2d 865, 866 [1989]), the petitioner herein is seeking a writ prohibiting his continued prosecution on the underlying indictment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doorley v. DeMarco
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The statute of limitations for a proceeding seeking mandamus to compel is four months (see CPLR 217; Town of Webster v Village of Webster, 280 AD2d 931, 933-934 [2001]), as it is for a proceeding seeking prohibition (see CPLR 217; Matter of Holtzman v Marrus, 74 NY2d 865, 866 [1989]; Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564 , 568 n 1 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doorley v. DeMarco
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The statute of limitations for a proceeding seeking mandamus to compel is four months (see CPLR 217; Town of Webster v Village of Webster, 280 AD2d 931, 933-934 [2001]), as it is for a proceeding seeking prohibition (see CPLR 217; Matter of Holtzman v Marrus, 74 NY2d 865, 866 [1989]; Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564 , 568 n 1 [1988]).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Pavone v. Wood
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Servs., 199 AD2d 875, 877 ; see also, Matter of Holtzman v Marrus, 74 NY2d 865, 866 ; Lenihan v City of New York, 58 NY2d 679, 682 ; Matter of Wright v Town Bd., 170 AD2d 912, 913 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Elizabeth Holtzman, Respondent,
v.
Alan Marrus, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, Et Al., Appellants
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 17, 1989.
547 N.E.2d 84
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Alan D. Marrus, appellant pro se., Robert S. Dean and Philip L. Weinstein for Geraldo Charry, appellant., Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Janet M. Berk, Barbara D. Underwood and Roseann B. MacKechnie of counsel), respondent pro se.
Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa Concur.
Cited by 256 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the petition dismissed.

The court had jurisdiction to try the case and the only question is whether it had the power to issue the preclusion order. Even if prohibition were available to challenge such an order the proceeding would have to be commenced within four months of the date on which the order became final and binding (CPLR 217). Because the order in this case went into effect immediately, the petition served on Justice Marrus more than four months after that date was untimely (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 566, at 793).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

[*867] Judgment reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed in a memorandum.