Gibbs v. O'Rourke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gibbs v. O'Rourke

43 A.D.3d 1164, 841 N.Y.S.2d 797

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1164 (Gibbs v. O'Rourke) 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

Gibbs v. O'Rourke, 43 A.D.3d 1164, 841 N.Y.S.2d 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Andrew P O’Rourke, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, to “enter into the minutes the amended complaint and TRO/Injunctions filed by [the petitioner in] May and July 2003.”

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to [1165]*1165compel 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]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Dillon, 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 Andrew P O’Rourke, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, to “enter into the minutes the amended complaint and TRO/Injunctions filed by [the petitioner in] May and July 2003.”

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to [1165]*1165compel 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]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1164, 841 N.Y.S.2d 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-orourke-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack