Background
In 2022, Westchester County District Attorney Miriam E. Rocah commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition against New Rochelle City Court Judge Matthew J. Costa. The dispute arose from a DWI prosecution: Judge Costa had entered an order precluding the People from calling a New York State trooper — and from using any evidence that trooper had gathered — as a sanction for the prosecution’s untimely disclosure of certain impeachment material about the trooper under CPL former 245.80(1)(a). From the DA’s perspective, the preclusion order gutted the prosecution’s case against defendant Michael Molina.
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the petition and annulled the preclusion order, finding that the City Court had acted in excess of its authority. On appeal, the City Court’s successor judge, Eileen Songer McCarthy, challenged the prohibition remedy itself.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division reversed and denied the petition. Writing through Justice Quirk, the panel held that CPLR Article 78 prohibition does not lie to challenge a criminal court’s evidence preclusion order under CPL 245.80, even one that would effectively end the prosecution. The two-part test for prohibition requires that (1) the court act without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers, and (2) serious harm will result if prohibition does not issue. The panel held that the New Rochelle City Court plainly had jurisdiction over the DWI action and authority to impose discovery sanctions; any error in exercising that authority was an ordinary legal error — not the kind of wholesale abuse of authority that prohibition is designed to remedy.
The court also rejected the DA’s argument that the order’s nonappealability under CPL 450.20 tipped the balance. While nonappealability is a factor, the Court of Appeals has long held it does not, by itself, justify prohibition. The Legislature’s deliberate choice to allow People’s appeals from dismissals under CPL 245.80(2) but not from preclusion orders reflected a policy choice that courts cannot override through the extraordinary writ.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence preclusion orders under CPL 245.80(1)(a) — including those that may effectively end a prosecution — represent ordinary legal errors not subject to CPLR Article 78 prohibition review.
- The nonappealability of a discovery sanction order does not, standing alone, elevate the error into an unauthorized act warranting the extraordinary writ of prohibition.
- CPL 450.20’s silence on People’s appeals from preclusion orders (as opposed to dismissals) reflects a legislative choice that parties cannot circumvent through collateral proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for prosecutors and criminal defense practitioners navigating New York’s automatic discovery statute. After Rocah, where a criminal court precluded evidence rather than dismissed charges as a CPL 245.80 sanction, the People have no appeal and no writ of prohibition. Discovery sanctions short of dismissal — including witness preclusion that cripples a prosecution — are effectively unreviewable. Prosecutors should take seriously the obligation to make timely disclosure under CPL Article 245; late production of impeachment material can result in lasting remedies with no recourse.
For defense practitioners, the decision underscores the breadth of criminal courts’ remedial discretion under CPL 245.80, and confirms that aggressive preclusion orders — while potentially subject to the ordinary appellate process in limited circumstances — are generally insulated from extraordinary writ review. The court also clarifies that the 2022 amendments to CPL 245.80 (effective May 9, 2022) do not govern orders entered before that date.