J L J Recycling Contractors Corp. v. Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J L J Recycling Contractors Corp. v. Hall

287 A.D.2d 630, 731 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9802

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 630 (J L J Recycling Contractors Corp. v. Hall) 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

J L J Recycling Contractors Corp. v. Hall, 287 A.D.2d 630, 731 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Justice W. Bromley Hall to vacate the dismissal of an action entitled J L J Recycling Contrs. Corp. v Town of Babylon, brought in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Index No. 94/8433.

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. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Altman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, H. Miller and Crane, 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 Justice W. Bromley Hall to vacate the dismissal of an action entitled J L J Recycling Contrs. Corp. v Town of Babylon, brought in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Index No. 94/8433.

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. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Altman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 630, 731 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-l-j-recycling-contractors-corp-v-hall-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack