Matter of Williams v. Baily-Schiffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Williams v. Baily-Schiffman

122 A.D.3d 933, 995 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2014

Docket2014-09282

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.3d 933 (Matter of Williams v. Baily-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 Williams v. Baily-Schiffman, 122 A.D.3d 933, 995 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Froceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit Loren Baily-Schiffman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from enforcing an order dated September 23, 2014, that was issued in a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, pending in that court under index No. 100147/12.

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

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Froceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit Loren Baily-Schiffman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from enforcing an order dated September 23, 2014, that was issued in a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, pending in that court under index No. 100147/12.

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

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 933, 995 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-williams-v-baily-schiffman-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack