Matter of Beckerman v. Christopher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Beckerman v. Christopher

142 A.D.3d 614, 36 N.Y.S.3d 610

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

DecidedAugust 17, 2016

Docket2016-06238

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 614 (Matter of Beckerman v. Christopher) 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 Beckerman v. Christopher, 142 A.D.3d 614, 36 N.Y.S.3d 610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Linda Christopher, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, to vacate a temporary restraining order contained in an order to show cause of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 15, 2016, in an action entitled Beckerman v Beckerman, pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under index No. 3585/14, and in the nature of prohibition to bar Justice Christopher from taking any further actions regarding the relocation of the respondent Julie A. Beckerman and the parties’ child.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). Moreover, “[b]ecause 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 failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Dickerson and Austin, 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 mandamus to compel the respondent Linda Christopher, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, to vacate a temporary restraining order contained in an order to show cause of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 15, 2016, in an action entitled Beckerman v Beckerman, pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under index No. 3585/14, and in the nature of prohibition to bar Justice Christopher from taking any further actions regarding the relocation of the respondent Julie A. Beckerman and the parties’ child.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). Moreover, “[b]ecause 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 failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 614, 36 N.Y.S.3d 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-beckerman-v-christopher-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack