Huntley v. Bartlett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Huntley v. Bartlett

117 A.D.3d 947, 985 N.Y.S.2d 890

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

DecidedMay 21, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 947 (Huntley v. Bartlett) 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

Huntley v. Bartlett, 117 A.D.3d 947, 985 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Froceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Catherine M. Bartlett, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Orange [948]*948County, to grant a petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul determinations of the New York State Board of Parole denying the petitioners’ release to parole.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where 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]). Moreover, “[b]ecause 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 petitioners failed to establish a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Rivera, J.P, Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Froceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Catherine M. Bartlett, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Orange [948]*948County, to grant a petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul determinations of the New York State Board of Parole denying the petitioners’ release to parole.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where 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]). Moreover, “[b]ecause 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 petitioners failed to establish a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Rivera, J.P, Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 947, 985 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huntley-v-bartlett-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack