Sommer v. Corso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sommer v. Corso

217 A.D.2d 553, 628 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7533

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 217 A.D.2d 553 (Sommer v. Corso) 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

Sommer v. Corso, 217 A.D.2d 553, 628 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent to re-open the Huntley hearing in People v Sommer, Suffolk County Indictment No. 609/68 (see, People v Sommer, 33 NY2d 629).

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Santucci, 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 mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent to re-open the Huntley hearing in People v Sommer, Suffolk County Indictment No. 609/68 (see, People v Sommer, 33 NY2d 629).

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 553, 628 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sommer-v-corso-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack