Matter of Hin Y. Limtung v. Kerrigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Hin Y. Limtung v. Kerrigan

127 A.D.3d 973, 4 N.Y.S.3d 919

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

DecidedApril 15, 2015

Docket2015-01060

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 973 (Matter of Hin Y. Limtung v. Kerrigan) 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 Hin Y. Limtung v. Kerrigan, 127 A.D.3d 973, 4 N.Y.S.3d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit Kevin J. Kerrigan, a Justice of the Supreme Court, *974 Queens County, from holding a hearing on the issue of sanctions in an action entitled Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Limtung, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under index No. 19442/07.

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 failed to establish a clear legal right to relief in the nature of prohibition.

Rivera, J.R, Sgroi, Cohen and Duffy, 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, inter alia, to prohibit Kevin J. Kerrigan, a Justice of the Supreme Court, *974 Queens County, from holding a hearing on the issue of sanctions in an action entitled Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Limtung, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under index No. 19442/07.

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 failed to establish a clear legal right to relief in the nature of prohibition.

Rivera, J.R, Sgroi, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 973, 4 N.Y.S.3d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-hin-y-limtung-v-kerrigan-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack