Matter of Guity v. Molia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Guity v. Molia

121 A.D.3d 791, 992 N.Y.S.2d 900

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

DecidedOctober 8, 2014

Docket2014-06551

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 791 (Matter of Guity v. Molia) 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 Guity v. Molia, 121 A.D.3d 791, 992 N.Y.S.2d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit certain underlying civil actions from proceeding, and to compel the recusal of the respondent Denise F. Molia from presiding over the actions.

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 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, *792 16 [1981]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Balkin, J.E, Chambers, Hall and Cohen, 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 and mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit certain underlying civil actions from proceeding, and to compel the recusal of the respondent Denise F. Molia from presiding over the actions.

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 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, *792 16 [1981]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Balkin, J.E, Chambers, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 791, 992 N.Y.S.2d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-guity-v-molia-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack