Murphy v. Danaher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Danaher

123 A.D.2d 461, 506 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60214

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

DecidedSeptember 4, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 461 (Murphy v. Danaher) 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

Murphy v. Danaher, 123 A.D.2d 461, 506 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion granted, and application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied and petition dated July 28, 1986 dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where petitioner has established a clear right to relief and where action taken or threatened is clearly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction (see, e.g., Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59). Such remedy does not issue as of right, but only in the sound discretion of the court (Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8, 13). In addition, prohibition is inappropriate even where there has been an excess of jurisdiction if an adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal, is available (Matter of Vest v Simcoe, 61 AD2d 869). Even if it is assumed in the present case that there is personal jurisdiction over all respondents, we are of the opinion that, applying the aforementioned principles, this collateral proceeding does not lie. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Motion granted, and application, pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied and petition dated July 28, 1986 dismissed. The extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where petitioner has established a clear right to relief and where action taken or threatened is clearly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction (see, e.g., Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59). Such remedy does not issue as of right, but only in the sound discretion of the court (Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8, 13). In addition, prohibition is inappropriate even where there has been an excess of jurisdiction if an adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal, is available (Matter of Vest v Simcoe, 61 AD2d 869). Even if it is assumed in the present case that there is personal jurisdiction over all respondents, we are of the opinion that, applying the aforementioned principles, this collateral proceeding does not lie. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 461, 506 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-danaher-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack