Matter of Awan v. Adams

120 A.D.3d 1410, 993 N.Y.S.2d 145
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 24, 2014
Docket2014-06374
StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1410 (Matter of Awan v. Adams) 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
Matter of Awan v. Adams, 120 A.D.3d 1410, 993 N.Y.S.2d 145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Rachel Adams, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kangs County, from presiding over the petitioner’s matrimonial action entitled Awan v Kazoleas-Awan, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 51662/10.

Motion by the petitioner to hold the respondents in contempt of court, and application by Attorney General Eric T. Schneider-man to preclude the petitioner from commencing any further actions or proceedings or making any further motions in the matrimonial action without leave of court.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the application, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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

*1411 Ordered that the motion is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the application by Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman to preclude the petitioner from commencing any further actions or proceedings or making any further motions in the matrimonial action without leave of court is denied without prejudice to seeking that relief in the Supreme Court, Kings County.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Austin, J.E, Roman, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rush v. Mordue
502 N.E.2d 170 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Holtzman v. Goldman
523 N.E.2d 297 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 A.D.3d 1410, 993 N.Y.S.2d 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-awan-v-adams-nyappdiv-2014.