Fonvil v. Molea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fonvil v. Molea

284 A.D.2d 396, 726 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6116

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 396 (Fonvil v. Molea) 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

Fonvil v. Molea, 284 A.D.2d 396, 726 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County, dated March 22, 2001.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, 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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Altman, J. P., Krausman, McGinity 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 prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County, dated March 22, 2001.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, 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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Altman, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 396, 726 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fonvil-v-molea-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack