Romanchuk v. County of Westchester

New York Court of Appeals

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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 27, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 316 N.E.2d 719 (Romanchuk v. County of Westchester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 N.E.2d 719, 34 N.Y.2d 906, 359 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romanchuk-v-county-of-westchester-ny-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack