Smithson v. Tolbert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smithson v. Tolbert

48 A.D.3d 471, 849 N.Y.S.2d 807

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 471 (Smithson v. Tolbert) 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

Smithson v. Tolbert, 48 A.D.3d 471, 849 N.Y.S.2d 807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Bruce E. Tolbert, a Justice of the Supreme .Court, Westchester County, to enter a judgment of divorce in favor of the petitioner in an action entitled Smithson v Smithson, pending under Westchester County index No. 15317/05.

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. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Bruce E. Tolbert, a Justice of the Supreme .Court, Westchester County, to enter a judgment of divorce in favor of the petitioner in an action entitled Smithson v Smithson, pending under Westchester County index No. 15317/05.

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. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 471, 849 N.Y.S.2d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smithson-v-tolbert-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack