People ex rel. Ferris v. Harnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Ferris v. Harnett

249 A.D. 916, 292 N.Y.S. 526, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10141

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 916 (People ex rel. Ferris v. Harnett) 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

People ex rel. Ferris v. Harnett, 249 A.D. 916, 292 N.Y.S. 526, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from an order denying petitioner’s application for a mandamus order. The proceeding was commenced by the service of an order to show cause. Peremptory mandamus was sought directing the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to make rules and regulations necessary to administer subdivision 18 of section 15 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and directing the Superintendent of State Police, as head of the Division of State Police, to require officers and members of the State police to investigate and make arrests for violations of subdivision 18 of section 15 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy not demandable as a matter of right. Whether it should be granted in a given case rests in the sound discretion of the court. That discretion should be exercised with proper regard for established legal principles and not arbitrarily withheld. The petitioner fails to show facts ’hat would warrant this court in reversing the order of the court below. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

This is an appeal from an order denying petitioner’s application for a mandamus order. The proceeding was commenced by the service of an order to show cause. Peremptory mandamus was sought directing the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to make rules and regulations necessary to administer subdivision 18 of section 15 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and directing the Superintendent of State Police, as head of the Division of State Police, to require officers and members of the State police to investigate and make arrests for violations of subdivision 18 of section 15 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy not demandable as a matter of right. Whether it should be granted in a given case rests in the sound discretion of the court. That discretion should be exercised with proper regard for established legal principles and not arbitrarily withheld. The petitioner fails to show facts ’hat would warrant this court in reversing the order of the court below. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 916, 292 N.Y.S. 526, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-ferris-v-harnett-nyappdiv-1937.