Archer v. Schneiderman
97 A.D.3d 741, 947 N.Y.2d 916
Opinion
[742]*742“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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]).
The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Archer v. Schneiderman, 97 A.D.3d 741, 947 N.Y.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).
97 A.D.3d 741 (Archer v. Schneiderman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rush v. Mordue
502 N.E.2d 170 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Holtzman v. Goldman
523 N.E.2d 297 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)