Ali v. Queens County Supreme Court

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ali v. Queens County Supreme Court

251 A.D.2d 499, 673 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6894

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

DecidedJune 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 499 (Ali v. Queens County Supreme Court) 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

Ali v. Queens County Supreme Court, 251 A.D.2d 499, 673 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[500]*500—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to enjoin the respondents from continuing unlawful and illegal proceedings against him, and application for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application is granted; and it is further,

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. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

[500]*500—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to enjoin the respondents from continuing unlawful and illegal proceedings against him, and application for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application is granted; and it is further,

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. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 499, 673 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ali-v-queens-county-supreme-court-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack