Matter of Sullivan v. Morgenstern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Sullivan v. Morgenstern

138 A.D.3d 1006, 28 N.Y.S.3d 632

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

DecidedApril 20, 2016

Docket2015-11737

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 1006 (Matter of Sullivan v. Morgenstern) 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 Sullivan v. Morgenstern, 138 A.D.3d 1006, 28 N.Y.S.3d 632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit Esther M. Morgenstern, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part), from retaining jurisdiction over an action entitled Sullivan v Gilard-Sullivan, which was commenced in the Supreme Court, New York County, under index No. 402111/13, and was consolidated with an action entitled GilardSullivan v Sullivan, commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 54601/11, and mandamus to compel the respondents Lawrence Knipel and Matthew D’Emic, Administrative Judges of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to assign the action entitled Sullivan v Gilard-Sullivan to a Justice in a civil part of the Supreme Court, Kings County, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

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 *1007 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, 16 [1981]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Hall, J.P., Cohen, LaSalle and Connolly, 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 Esther M. Morgenstern, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part), from retaining jurisdiction over an action entitled Sullivan v Gilard-Sullivan, which was commenced in the Supreme Court, New York County, under index No. 402111/13, and was consolidated with an action entitled GilardSullivan v Sullivan, commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 54601/11, and mandamus to compel the respondents Lawrence Knipel and Matthew D’Emic, Administrative Judges of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to assign the action entitled Sullivan v Gilard-Sullivan to a Justice in a civil part of the Supreme Court, Kings County, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

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 *1007 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, 16 [1981]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Hall, J.P., Cohen, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 1006, 28 N.Y.S.3d 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-sullivan-v-morgenstern-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack