Koziol v. Hood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koziol v. Hood

72 A.D.3d 1634, 899 N.Y.S.2d 691

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

DecidedApril 30, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 1634 (Koziol v. Hood) 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

Koziol v. Hood, 72 A.D.3d 1634, 899 N.Y.S.2d 691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) seeking, inter alia, relief in the nature of prohibition and mandamus.

It is hereby ordered that said petition is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: We dismiss this CPLR article 78 petition seeking, inter alia, relief in the nature of prohibition and mandamus. “[Petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to either of these remedies [that] could not be safeguarded through alternative remedies” (Matter of Galinson v Graci, 182 AD2d 819, 820 [1992]; see Matter of Susskind v Stanger, 122 AD2d 213, 214-215 [1986]; Matter of Raysor v Stern, 68 AD2d 786, 788-789 [1979], lv denied 48 NY2d 605 [1979], cert denied 446 US 942 [1980], reh denied 457 US 1127 [1982]). Present— Martoche, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) seeking, inter alia, relief in the nature of prohibition and mandamus.

It is hereby ordered that said petition is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: We dismiss this CPLR article 78 petition seeking, inter alia, relief in the nature of prohibition and mandamus. “[Petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to either of these remedies [that] could not be safeguarded through alternative remedies” (Matter of Galinson v Graci, 182 AD2d 819, 820 [1992]; see Matter of Susskind v Stanger, 122 AD2d 213, 214-215 [1986]; Matter of Raysor v Stern, 68 AD2d 786, 788-789 [1979], lv denied 48 NY2d 605 [1979], cert denied 446 US 942 [1980], reh denied 457 US 1127 [1982]). Present— Martoche, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 1634, 899 N.Y.S.2d 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koziol-v-hood-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack