Matter of Farage v. Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Farage v. Lewis

142 A.D.3d 706, 36 N.Y.S.3d 922

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

DecidedAugust 31, 2016

Docket2015-10223

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 706 (Matter of Farage v. Lewis) 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 Farage v. Lewis, 142 A.D.3d 706, 36 N.Y.S.3d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus and prohibition, inter alia, to compel certain Justices of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to, among other things, vacate certain orders issued by them, and to prohibit those Justices from issuing any further orders in connection with certain underlying actions.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, 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]). “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 failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and LaSalle, 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 and prohibition, inter alia, to compel certain Justices of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to, among other things, vacate certain orders issued by them, and to prohibit those Justices from issuing any further orders in connection with certain underlying actions.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, 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]). “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 failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 706, 36 N.Y.S.3d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-farage-v-lewis-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack