Matter of Morse v. Bailey-Schiffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Morse v. Bailey-Schiffman

142 A.D.3d 1177, 37 N.Y.S.3d 907

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2016

Docket2016-05973

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 1177 (Matter of Morse v. Bailey-Schiffman) 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 Morse v. Bailey-Schiffman, 142 A.D.3d 1177, 37 N.Y.S.3d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursu-

ant to CPLR article 78, inter aha, in the nature of mandamus to compel the issuance of certain judgments in an action entitled Morse v Lee, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 501694/14, and a proceeding entitled Matter of Morse v Bronk, pending in that court under index No. 13140/15, and in the nature of prohibition to preclude the respondent Loren Baily-Schiffman, sued herein as Loren Bailey-Schiffman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from presiding over that action and that proceeding.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will he 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]). Moreover, “[b]ecause 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 establish a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Dickerson, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursu-

ant to CPLR article 78, inter aha, in the nature of mandamus to compel the issuance of certain judgments in an action entitled Morse v Lee, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 501694/14, and a proceeding entitled Matter of Morse v Bronk, pending in that court under index No. 13140/15, and in the nature of prohibition to preclude the respondent Loren Baily-Schiffman, sued herein as Loren Bailey-Schiffman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from presiding over that action and that proceeding.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will he 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]). Moreover, “[b]ecause 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 establish a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Dickerson, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 1177, 37 N.Y.S.3d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-morse-v-bailey-schiffman-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack