necessity of correcting error in New York

1960Corp. v. Humphrey, 268 N. Y. 26, 39 ). “ It is far better to prevent the exercise of an unauthorized power than to be driven to the necessity of correcting the error after it is committed.” (Appo v. People, 20 N. Y. 531, 542 .) No clear right to relief is shown here and the petitioner should be left to the usual procedures and remedies (People ex rel.

1945Selden, J., said in Quimbo Appo v. People ( 20 N. Y. 531, 542 ) that 1 it is far better to prevent the exercise of an unauthorized power than to be driven to the necessity of correcting the error after it is committed. ’ ’ ’ The Children’s Court and the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, of which it is a part (L. 1933, ch. 482), are courts of inferior and limited jurisdiction.

1969Comm. v. Norton, 304 N. Y. 522, 530 .) Minimally, petitioners are entitled to an order, in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the Surrogate of Jefferson County from taking any proof or testimony or making any decision or order in the proceeding pending before him or any future proceeding in this estate relating to the order made October 10, 1966 by Supreme Court, Onondaga County, in a proceeding entitled “ In the Matter of the Application of Margaret Haas Bock and Grace Haas Uhlein, Petitioners, For Approval of an Agreement of Compromise in the Estate of Elizabeth M.

1960Burbank v. Wood, 21 App. Div. 245, 246 ).

1960Corp. v. Humphrey, 268 N. Y. 26, 39 ). “ It is far better to prevent the exercise of an unauthorized power than to be driven to the necessity of correcting the error after it is committed.” (Appo v. People, 20 N. Y. 531, 542 .) No clear right to relief is shown here and the petitioner should be left to the usual procedures and remedies (People ex rel.

1945Such ‘ ‘ jurisdiction will never be presumed and the facts necessary to confer jurisdiction in any particular case must affirmatively appear in the record ” (People v. Smith, 266 App. Div. 57, 60 ).

1936The scope of this remedy ought not, I think, to be abridged, as it is far better to prevent the exercise of an unauthorized power than to be driven to the necessity of correcting the error after it is committed.” In People v. Engel ( 247 App. Div. 866 ) this court had before it an order made on a motion similar to the one made at Special Term in the case at bar.

1931Proc. § 517; People v Canepi, 181 N. Y. 398 .) The petitioners here urge that “ It is far better to prevent the exercise of an unauthorized power than to be driven to the necessity of correcting the error after it is committed.” (Quimbo Appo v. People, 20 N. Y. 531, 542 .) Sound judicial discretion would probably require that such course be followed if it should clearly and undoubtedly appear that the inferior court was about to usurp a jurisdiction which it did not possess or to exceed its powers when it had jurisdiction.

1920Livingston v. Wyatt, 186 N. Y. 383, 396 ), the conclusion is inevitable that if no error prejudicial to relator’s rights would appear at the end of the trial, to be corrected on appeal, the trial itself may safely be proceeded with.