Solheim v. Weber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Solheim v. Weber

68 A.D.3d 1002, 889 N.Y.2d 867

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 2009·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

“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]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Thompson v Griffin, 58 AD 3d 637 [2009]; Matter of Weissman v Lange, 4 AD3d 478 [2004]; see also Matter of Traynor v Rosato, 275 AD2d 326 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Belen and Austin, JJ, concur.

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

“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]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Thompson v Griffin, 58 AD 3d 637 [2009]; Matter of Weissman v Lange, 4 AD3d 478 [2004]; see also Matter of Traynor v Rosato, 275 AD2d 326 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Belen and Austin, JJ, concur.

Solheim v. Weber, 68 A.D.3d 1002, 889 N.Y.2d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

68 A.D.3d 1002 (Solheim v. Weber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related