Bullion v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bullion v. Safir

249 A.D.2d 386, 670 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3979

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

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 386 (Bullion v. Safir) 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

Bullion v. Safir, 249 A.D.2d 386, 670 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents to arrest a certain individual, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated May 21, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

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. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Walsh v LaGuardia, 269 NY 437; Matter of Perazzo v Lindsay, 30 AD2d 179, 180, affd 23 NY2d 764). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents to arrest a certain individual, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated May 21, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

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. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Walsh v LaGuardia, 269 NY 437; Matter of Perazzo v Lindsay, 30 AD2d 179, 180, affd 23 NY2d 764). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 386, 670 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullion-v-safir-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack