Robinson v. Spinner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Spinner

101 A.D.3d 1130, 956 N.Y.2d 502

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 1130 (Robinson v. Spinner) 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

Robinson v. Spinner, 101 A.D.3d 1130, 956 N.Y.2d 502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

“Because of its extraordinary nature, 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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]).

The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Angiolillo, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

“Because of its extraordinary nature, 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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]).

The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Angiolillo, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 1130, 956 N.Y.2d 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-spinner-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack