Manhattan Gold & Silver, Inc. v. Hynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manhattan Gold & Silver, Inc. v. Hynes

51 A.D.3d 671, 855 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedMay 6, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.3d 671 (Manhattan Gold & Silver, Inc. v. Hynes) 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

Manhattan Gold & Silver, Inc. v. Hynes, 51 A.D.3d 671, 855 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CELR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents to return the sum of $675,840.03 seized from the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to a search warrant.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Crain Communications v Hughes, 74 NY2d 626 [1989]; Matter of Kevilly v Honorof, 287 AD2d 504 [2001]). Here, the petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to the return of its property (see Matter of Moss v Spitzer, 19 AD3d 599 [2005]; Matter of D’Agnese v Scher, 306 AD2d 408 [2003]). Therefore, the petition must be denied and the proceeding dismissed. Rivera, J.E, Ritter, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CELR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents to return the sum of $675,840.03 seized from the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to a search warrant.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Crain Communications v Hughes, 74 NY2d 626 [1989]; Matter of Kevilly v Honorof, 287 AD2d 504 [2001]). Here, the petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to the return of its property (see Matter of Moss v Spitzer, 19 AD3d 599 [2005]; Matter of D’Agnese v Scher, 306 AD2d 408 [2003]). Therefore, the petition must be denied and the proceeding dismissed. Rivera, J.E, Ritter, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 671, 855 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-gold-silver-inc-v-hynes-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack