Karst v. Town of Carmel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karst v. Town of Carmel

254 A.D.2d 359, 678 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10782

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 359 (Karst v. Town of Carmel) 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

Karst v. Town of Carmel, 254 A.D.2d 359, 678 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the Town of Carmel from allegedly depriving the petitioners of their rights under McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 971, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated August 26, 1997, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right and only when the body or officer ‘acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction’” (Matter of Bondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8, 13, quoting Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62). The petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the Town of Carmel from allegedly depriving the petitioners of their rights under McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 971, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated August 26, 1997, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right and only when the body or officer ‘acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction’” (Matter of Bondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8, 13, quoting Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62). The petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 359, 678 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karst-v-town-of-carmel-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack