Bonez v. Shea
This text of 115 A.D.2d 101 (Bonez v. Shea) 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.
Opinion
Proceeding, pursuant to CPLR article 78, for judgment in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, dismissed, without costs. Petitioner’s service of the notice of petition and petition by mail upon respondents was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over them (CPLR 403 [c]). In addition, CPLR 7804 (c) requires that the notice of petition must also be served upon the Attorney-General. It is also noted that the extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie if there is available an adequate remedy at law (Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62). Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
115 A.D.2d 101, 495 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonez-v-shea-nyappdiv-1985.