Miller v. De Maro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. De Maro

1 A.D.2d 363, 766 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1 A.D.3d 363, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11514

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 363 (Miller v. De Maro) 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

Miller v. De Maro, 1 A.D.2d 363, 766 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1 A.D.3d 363, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to [364]*364compel the respondent to reinstate the complaint in an action entitled Miller v Radder, in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 8837/02.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when 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. Santucci, J.E, Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to [364]*364compel the respondent to reinstate the complaint in an action entitled Miller v Radder, in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 8837/02.

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

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when 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. Santucci, J.E, Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 363, 766 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1 A.D.3d 363, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-de-maro-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack