Degrijze v. Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Degrijze v. Katz

213 A.D.2d 546, 624 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2855

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 546 (Degrijze v. Katz) 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

Degrijze v. Katz, 213 A.D.2d 546, 624 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent to vacate a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 15, 1993.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto and in support of the motion, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, 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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Miller and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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