Shockome v. Amodeo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shockome v. Amodeo

32 A.D.3d 961, 820 N.Y.S.2d 810

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 961 (Shockome v. Amodeo) 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

Shockome v. Amodeo, 32 A.D.3d 961, 820 N.Y.S.2d 810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit Damian Amodeo, a Judge of the Family Court, Dutchess County, from proceeding in a matter entitled Matter of Shockome v Shockome, pending in that court under docket Nos. V-5156-02, V-5157-02, V-5620-02, V-5621-02, and V-5362-02.

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

“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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). 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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Lunn and Dillon, 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 Damian Amodeo, a Judge of the Family Court, Dutchess County, from proceeding in a matter entitled Matter of Shockome v Shockome, pending in that court under docket Nos. V-5156-02, V-5157-02, V-5620-02, V-5621-02, and V-5362-02.

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

“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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). 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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 961, 820 N.Y.S.2d 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shockome-v-amodeo-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack