Matter of Lvovsky v. Hart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Lvovsky v. Hart

132 A.D.3d 767, 17 N.Y.S.3d 660

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2015

Docket2015-08007

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 767 (Matter of Lvovsky v. Hart) 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 Lvovsky v. Hart, 132 A.D.3d 767, 17 N.Y.S.3d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Duane Hart, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from presiding over an action entitled Lvovsky v Breznan (Sup Ct, Queens County, index No. 706107/13).

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 demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, 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, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Duane Hart, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from presiding over an action entitled Lvovsky v Breznan (Sup Ct, Queens County, index No. 706107/13).

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 demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 767, 17 N.Y.S.3d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-lvovsky-v-hart-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack