Romanchuk v. County of Westchester

316 N.E.2d 719, 34 N.Y.2d 906, 359 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1454
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 27, 1974·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: Mandamus, rarely, if ever, lies where relief is or has been available by way of motion or appeal in an action (CPLR 7801, subd. 1; 23 Carmody-Wait, 2d, New York Practice, § 145:99). Nevertheless, in the discretion of the Supreme Court, the remedy may be invoked if in fact no relief is currently available, official records are involved, and the interests of justice are substantially served (cf. Matter of Ihrig v. Williams, 181 App. Div. 865, 868, affid. 223 N. Y. 670; Ann., Mandamus — Inspection of Records, 169 A. L. R. 653). The issue of excludable material was never properly presented in the record before the court. If so advised, respondents-appellants may seek appropriate relief by way of a motion to amend the judgment in this proceeding.

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Stevens. Taking no part: Judge Rabin.

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

Romanchuk v. County of Westchester, 316 N.E.2d 719, 34 N.Y.2d 906, 359 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1454 (N.Y. 1974).

316 N.E.2d 719 (Romanchuk v. County of Westchester) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Mosczydlowski
58 A.D.2d 234 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)