Rainbow News 12 Co. v. Tisch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rainbow News 12 Co. v. Tisch

214 A.D.2d 740, 625 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4478

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

DecidedApril 24, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 740 (Rainbow News 12 Co. v. Tisch) 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

Rainbow News 12 Co. v. Tisch, 214 A.D.2d 740, 625 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondents to release certain audio-tape and video-tape recordings introduced as evidence in pre-trial hearings in an action entitled People v Rogers, pending in the County Court, Suffolk County (Indictment No. 2584/94).

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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Altman, 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 respondents to release certain audio-tape and video-tape recordings introduced as evidence in pre-trial hearings in an action entitled People v Rogers, pending in the County Court, Suffolk County (Indictment No. 2584/94).

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 here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 740, 625 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainbow-news-12-co-v-tisch-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack