Moyse v. Greenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moyse v. Greenberg

288 A.D.2d 386, 734 N.Y.S.2d 461, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11205

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 386 (Moyse v. Greenberg) 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

Moyse v. Greenberg, 288 A.D.2d 386, 734 N.Y.S.2d 461, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Sheldon Greenberg, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to issue to the petitioner an amended certificate of relief from disabilities pursuant to Correction Law § 702 to permit him to possess and use a firearm.

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. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, 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 compel the respondent Sheldon Greenberg, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to issue to the petitioner an amended certificate of relief from disabilities pursuant to Correction Law § 702 to permit him to possess and use a firearm.

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. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 386, 734 N.Y.S.2d 461, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moyse-v-greenberg-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack