Grillo v. Cuevas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grillo v. Cuevas

151 A.D.2d 359

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

DecidedJune 21, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.D.2d 359 (Grillo v. Cuevas) 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

Grillo v. Cuevas, 151 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered June 14, 1989, which granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition brought herein by the Executive Director of the New York State Liberal Party pursuant to CPLR article 78, affirmed, without costs.

Mandamus does not lie to enforce a discretionary act by respondent City Clerk, which any judicial direction to conduct an "examination” of an applicant for appointment as a commissioner of deeds under Executive Law § 140 (2) would necessarily entail. Furthermore, and in any event, the ultimate arbiter of respondent’s certification of competence in any given instance is exclusively a legislative matter for the City Council alone to determine. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered June 14, 1989, which granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition brought herein by the Executive Director of the New York State Liberal Party pursuant to CPLR article 78, affirmed, without costs.

Mandamus does not lie to enforce a discretionary act by respondent City Clerk, which any judicial direction to conduct an "examination” of an applicant for appointment as a commissioner of deeds under Executive Law § 140 (2) would necessarily entail. Furthermore, and in any event, the ultimate arbiter of respondent’s certification of competence in any given instance is exclusively a legislative matter for the City Council alone to determine. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grillo-v-cuevas-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack