Mahl v. Donovan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mahl v. Donovan

191 A.D.2d 565, 595 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2275

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 565 (Mahl v. Donovan) 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

Mahl v. Donovan, 191 A.D.2d 565, 595 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to bar the enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 30, 1992, in an action entitled Citibank v Mahl under Westchester County Index No. 3026/91.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the temporary restraining order continued in an order to show cause dated February 11,1993, is vacated.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right and, in cases where judicial authority is challenged, only when the court acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers (see, e.g., Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; Matter of Lipari v Owens, 70 NY2d 731). Prohibition is not available where, as here, there exists an adequate remedy at law, whether by appeal or otherwise (see, Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, 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 prohibition, inter alia, to bar the enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 30, 1992, in an action entitled Citibank v Mahl under Westchester County Index No. 3026/91.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the temporary restraining order continued in an order to show cause dated February 11,1993, is vacated.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right and, in cases where judicial authority is challenged, only when the court acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers (see, e.g., Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; Matter of Lipari v Owens, 70 NY2d 731). Prohibition is not available where, as here, there exists an adequate remedy at law, whether by appeal or otherwise (see, Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 565, 595 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahl-v-donovan-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack