Doscher v. Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doscher v. Zimmerman

96 A.D.3d 939, 946 N.Y.S.2d 498

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

DecidedJune 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 939 (Doscher v. Zimmerman) 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

Doscher v. Zimmerman, 96 A.D.3d 939, 946 N.Y.S.2d 498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Hope Schwartz Zimmerman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to determine certain motions in an action entitled Doscher v Doscher, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under index No. 201489/03.

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 where 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]). Under the circumstances presented in this proceeding, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of D’Agnese v Scher, 306 AD2d 408, 408-409 [2003]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Hope Schwartz Zimmerman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to determine certain motions in an action entitled Doscher v Doscher, pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under index No. 201489/03.

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 where 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]). Under the circumstances presented in this proceeding, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of D’Agnese v Scher, 306 AD2d 408, 408-409 [2003]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 939, 946 N.Y.S.2d 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doscher-v-zimmerman-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack