Huang v. Schulman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Huang v. Schulman

43 A.D.3d 1057, 841 N.Y.S.2d 465

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1057 (Huang v. Schulman) 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

Huang v. Schulman, 43 A.D.3d 1057, 841 N.Y.S.2d 465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel Martin J. Schulman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to calendar the above-entitled matter for immediate trial.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel 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 petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Dillon and Dickerson, 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 Martin J. Schulman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to calendar the above-entitled matter for immediate trial.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel 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 petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Dillon and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1057, 841 N.Y.S.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huang-v-schulman-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack