Matter of Teixeira v Spota

Annotate this Case
Matter of Teixeira v Spota 2015 NY Slip Op 05688 Decided on July 1, 2015 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on July 1, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
JEFFREY A. COHEN
JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
2015-02612

[*1]In the Matter of Daniel Teixeira, petitioner,

v

Thomas J. Spota, etc., et al., respondents. Christopher J. Cassar, Huntington, N.Y., for petitioner.



Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVencenzo of counsel), respondent pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michelle R. Lambert of counsel), for respondent William J. Condon.



DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, in effect, to prohibit the respondents from enforcing an order issued by the respondent William J. Condon, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 23, 2014, denying the application of the petitioner, a defendant in a criminal action entitled People v Teixeira, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Indictment No. 724/14, to participate in a judicial diversion program (see CPL 216).

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner seeks, in effect, to prohibit enforcement of an order dated October 23, 2014. This proceeding was not commenced until March 31, 2015. Accordingly, it must be dismissed as time-barred (see CPLR 217; Matter of Holtzman v Marrus, 74 NY2d 865; Matter of Levy v Reitz, 118 AD3d 702).

CHAMBERS, J.P., HALL, COHEN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.