Rielly v. Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rielly v. Katz

208 A.D.2d 748, 618 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9874

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 748 (Rielly v. Katz) 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

Rielly v. Katz, 208 A.D.2d 748, 618 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent to hold the District Attorney of Queens County in contempt of court.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is

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. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 to hold the District Attorney of Queens County in contempt of court.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is

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. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 748, 618 N.Y.S.2d 549, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rielly-v-katz-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack