Sadur v. Hernandez-Pinero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sadur v. Hernandez-Pinero

198 A.D.2d 175, 605 N.Y.S.2d 849

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 175 (Sadur v. Hernandez-Pinero) 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

Sadur v. Hernandez-Pinero, 198 A.D.2d 175, 605 N.Y.S.2d 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered December 30, 1992, granting respondents’ motion to seal the file in this proceeding, and judgment of the same court and Justice, entered April 9, 1993, dismissing a CPLR article 78 petition seeking an order in the nature of mandamus and prohibition directing respondents, inter alia, to expunge a certain document from petitioner’s personnel folder, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree that petitioner was not entitled to relief in the nature of mandamus or prohibition. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought (Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). Here, however, the issuance of and retention of the counseling memorandum was an appropriate discretionary act.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered December 30, 1992, granting respondents’ motion to seal the file in this proceeding, and judgment of the same court and Justice, entered April 9, 1993, dismissing a CPLR article 78 petition seeking an order in the nature of mandamus and prohibition directing respondents, inter alia, to expunge a certain document from petitioner’s personnel folder, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree that petitioner was not entitled to relief in the nature of mandamus or prohibition. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought (Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). Here, however, the issuance of and retention of the counseling memorandum was an appropriate discretionary act.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Kupferman, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 175, 605 N.Y.S.2d 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadur-v-hernandez-pinero-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack