Fuchs v. Forster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuchs v. Forster

82 A.D.3d 1097, 919 N.Y.2d 354

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 2011·Published

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

“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.

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

Pincite

82 A.D.3d 1097 (Fuchs v. Forster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related