Doria v. Ross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doria v. Ross

307 A.D.2d 355, 762 N.Y.S.2d 816

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

DecidedJuly 28, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 355 (Doria v. Ross) 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

Doria v. Ross, 307 A.D.2d 355, 762 N.Y.S.2d 816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Robert A. Ross, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, from commencing the trial in an underlying action entitled Doria v Doria, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 204377/01. Application by the respondent Joseph Doria for an award of costs and the imposition of a sanction upon the petitioner pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the application is denied, 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]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. In addition, the petitioner has an adequate legal remedy available (see e.g. Matter of Town of Huntington v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 NY2d 783 [1993]; Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8 [1976]).

Under the circumstances of this case, an award of costs and the imposition of a sanction upon the petitioner is not warranted. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, 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, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Robert A. Ross, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, from commencing the trial in an underlying action entitled Doria v Doria, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 204377/01. Application by the respondent Joseph Doria for an award of costs and the imposition of a sanction upon the petitioner pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the application is denied, 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]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. In addition, the petitioner has an adequate legal remedy available (see e.g. Matter of Town of Huntington v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 NY2d 783 [1993]; Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8 [1976]).

Under the circumstances of this case, an award of costs and the imposition of a sanction upon the petitioner is not warranted. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 355, 762 N.Y.S.2d 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doria-v-ross-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack