Schavran v. Mullen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schavran v. Mullen

289 A.D.2d 581, 736 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13116

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 581 (Schavran v. Mullen) 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

Schavran v. Mullen, 289 A.D.2d 581, 736 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents from exercising jurisdiction over the petitioner in an action entitled People v Schavran, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Indictment No. 374/01, and to dismiss the indictment.

Motion by the respondents to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

[582]*582“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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). Similarly, 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. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Ritter, J. P., Smith, Adams and Cozier, 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 prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents from exercising jurisdiction over the petitioner in an action entitled People v Schavran, pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Indictment No. 374/01, and to dismiss the indictment.

Motion by the respondents to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

[582]*582“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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). Similarly, 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. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Ritter, J. P., Smith, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 581, 736 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schavran-v-mullen-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack