Rosner v. Supreme Court

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosner v. Supreme Court

83 A.D.3d 1083, 921 N.Y.S.2d 546

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

DecidedApril 26, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 1083 (Rosner v. Supreme Court) 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

Rosner v. Supreme Court, 83 A.D.3d 1083, 921 N.Y.S.2d 546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel Robert A. Ross, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to require the respondent Stanley Gartenstein, a Judicial Hearing Officer in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to proceed with the trial in a matter entitled Rosner v Rosner pending in that court under index No. 201865/06.

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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Roman, 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 Robert A. Ross, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to require the respondent Stanley Gartenstein, a Judicial Hearing Officer in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to proceed with the trial in a matter entitled Rosner v Rosner pending in that court under index No. 201865/06.

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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 1083, 921 N.Y.S.2d 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosner-v-supreme-court-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack