Matter of Williams v. Warhit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Williams v. Warhit

2017 NY Slip Op 1872, 148 A.D.3d 916, 48 N.Y.S.3d 609

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2017

Docket2017-00764

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1872 (Matter of Williams v. Warhit) 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. Warhit, 2017 NY Slip Op 1872, 148 A.D.3d 916, 48 N.Y.S.3d 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Barry E. Warhit, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, from determining a certain motion, and in the nature of mandamus to compel the assignment of that motion to another Justice.

*917 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 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 has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Rivera, J.R, Roman, Miller and Duffy, 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 Barry E. Warhit, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, from determining a certain motion, and in the nature of mandamus to compel the assignment of that motion to another Justice.

*917 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 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 has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Rivera, J.R, Roman, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1872, 148 A.D.3d 916, 48 N.Y.S.3d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-williams-v-warhit-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack