Anderson v. Palmieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Palmieri

293 A.D.2d 531, 739 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3522

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

DecidedApril 8, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 531 (Anderson v. Palmieri) 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

Anderson v. Palmieri, 293 A.D.2d 531, 739 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to compel the Nassau County Sheriff to provide the petitioner with a hearing aid, and application for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8002 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; 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). Similarly, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Smith and Schmidt, 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 and mandamus, inter alia, to compel the Nassau County Sheriff to provide the petitioner with a hearing aid, and application for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8002 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; 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). Similarly, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Smith and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 531, 739 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-palmieri-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack