Fanning v. Grosso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fanning v. Grosso

82 A.D.3d 1232, 919 N.Y.2d 378

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1232 (Fanning v. Grosso) 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

Fanning v. Grosso, 82 A.D.3d 1232, 919 N.Y.2d 378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[1233]*1233The 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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). In addition, “[b]ecause of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only when 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 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

[1233]*1233The 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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). In addition, “[b]ecause of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only when 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 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1232, 919 N.Y.2d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fanning-v-grosso-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack