Motion by the respondent District Attorney of Queens County to dismiss the petition.
Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,
Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The extraordinary writ of prohibition is available only where there exists a clear legal right, and only in those cases where a court acts or threatens to act in excess of its authorized powers (see, Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 353). It is never available "merely to correct or prevent trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however grievous" (LaRocca v Love, 37 N.Y.2d 575, 579), nor is it available if there exists an adequate remedy by way of appeal or otherwise (see, Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 N.Y.2d 718, 720; Matter of Morganthau v Erdbaum, 59 N.Y.2d 143).
In the instant case, the court's conditional order of preclusion was within its discretion, and, unless otherwise waived, may be subject to review on appeal from any judgment of conviction. As the petitioner has an adequate remedy at law, the petition must be dismissed. Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.