Matter of Edwards v. Slobod

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Edwards v. Slobod

2017 NY Slip Op 3747, 150 A.D.3d 851, 51 N.Y.S.3d 897

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

DecidedMay 3, 2017

Docket2017-01091

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3747 (Matter of Edwards v. Slobod) 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 Edwards v. Slobod, 2017 NY Slip Op 3747, 150 A.D.3d 851, 51 N.Y.S.3d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit Elaine Slobod, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Orange County, from enforcing a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated November 9, 2016, in an underlying action to foreclose a mortgage pending in that court.

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

“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.

Eng, P.J., Rivera, Cohen and Maltese, 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 to prohibit Elaine Slobod, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Orange County, from enforcing a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated November 9, 2016, in an underlying action to foreclose a mortgage pending in that court.

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

“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.

Eng, P.J., Rivera, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3747, 150 A.D.3d 851, 51 N.Y.S.3d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-edwards-v-slobod-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack