Reina v. Harrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reina v. Harrington

209 A.D.2d 624, 619 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11471

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 624 (Reina v. Harrington) 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

Reina v. Harrington, 209 A.D.2d 624, 619 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of a writ of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit further proceedings on Nassau County Indictment No. 89673, and to direct that the County Court, Nassau County, hold a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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

Relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition is available "only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352; Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315-316). Similarly, 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 petitioners here have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, 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 a writ of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit further proceedings on Nassau County Indictment No. 89673, and to direct that the County Court, Nassau County, hold a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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

Relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition is available "only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352; Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315-316). Similarly, 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 petitioners here have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 624, 619 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reina-v-harrington-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack