Fitzgerald v. Blydenburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzgerald v. Blydenburgh

295 A.D.2d 607, 744 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6752

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

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 607 (Fitzgerald v. Blydenburgh) 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

Fitzgerald v. Blydenburgh, 295 A.D.2d 607, 744 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to issue a written decision and order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law in an action entitled Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald pending in that court under Index No. 00-12596.

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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Feuerstein and Cozier, 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 mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to issue a written decision and order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law in an action entitled Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald pending in that court under Index No. 00-12596.

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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 607, 744 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-blydenburgh-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack