Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Fuchs v. Forster

Fuchs v. Forster

82 A.D.3d 1097, 919 N.Y.2d 354
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 22, 2011
StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1097 (Fuchs v. Forster) 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
Fuchs v. Forster, 82 A.D.3d 1097, 919 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

“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 has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Brine v Dubinsky, 115 Misc 2d 572, 574 [1982]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Covello, J.E, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rush v. Mordue
502 N.E.2d 170 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Holtzman v. Goldman
523 N.E.2d 297 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
Brine v. Dubinsky
115 Misc. 2d 572 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.3d 1097, 919 N.Y.2d 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuchs-v-forster-nyappdiv-2011.