Best v. Queens County Supreme Court

54 A.D.3d 438, 862 N.Y.S.2d 612
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 21, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 438 (Best 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
Best v. Queens County Supreme Court, 54 A.D.3d 438, 862 N.Y.S.2d 612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Robert Kohm, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from conducting a hearing pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C in the matter entitled People v Best pending in that court. Application by the petitioner to prosecute this proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application to prosecute this proceeding as a poor person is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

[439]*439Adjudged 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 [1988]; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). 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 [1981]).

The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mastro, J.P., Lifson, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tuccio v. Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commission
67 A.D.3d 689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Eagle Valley Corp. v. Bollatto
63 A.D.3d 1157 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A.D.3d 438, 862 N.Y.S.2d 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/best-v-queens-county-supreme-court-nyappdiv-2008.