Barnes v. Grosso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnes v. Grosso

290 A.D.2d 553, 737 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 786

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 553 (Barnes v. Grosso) 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

Barnes v. Grosso, 290 A.D.2d 553, 737 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and [554]*554mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit the trial of the criminal action entitled People v Barnes pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. 2234/2001.

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. Goldstein, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and Cozier, 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 [554]*554mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit the trial of the criminal action entitled People v Barnes pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. 2234/2001.

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. Goldstein, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 553, 737 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-grosso-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack