Matter of Strang v. Bartlett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Strang v. Bartlett

2018 NY Slip Op 8665

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2018

Docket2018-11892

StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 8665 (Matter of Strang v. Bartlett) 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 Strang v. Bartlett, 2018 NY Slip Op 8665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Matter of Strang v Bartlett (2018 NY Slip Op 08665)

Matter of Strang v Bartlett

2018 NY Slip Op 08665

Decided on December 19, 2018

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 19, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2018-11892

[*1]In the Matter of Robert Strang, Sr., et al., petitioners,

v

Catherine M. Bartlett, etc., respondent.

Ferrara Law, P.C., Goshen, NY (Jamie T. Ferrara of counsel), for petitioners.

John E. Ziobro, Warwick, NY, for nonparties John Arbo and Victoria Arbo.

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent, the Honorable Catherine M. Bartlett, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Orange County, from enforcing an amended judgment dated November 28, 2017, entered in an action entitled Arbo v Strang , commenced in the Supreme Court, Orange County, under Index No. 6363/15.

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, 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; see Matter of Rush v Mordue , 68 NY2d 348, 352).

The petitioners have failed to establish a clear legal right to the relief sought.

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

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