Aguilar v. Stack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aguilar v. Stack

291 A.D.2d 448, 737 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1661

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 448 (Aguilar v. Stack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aguilar v. Stack, 291 A.D.2d 448, 737 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent, Elaine Jackson Stack, a Justice of the Supreme Court, from making any determination in an action entitled Sci v Sci, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 2862/2001, that may affect the person or property of the petitioner.

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

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent, Elaine Jackson Stack, a Justice of the Supreme Court, from making any determination in an action entitled Sci v Sci, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 2862/2001, that may affect the person or property of the petitioner.

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

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 448, 737 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguilar-v-stack-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack