Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Sosa v. Mulroy

Sosa v. Mulroy

182 A.D.2d 1139
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 24, 1992
StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1139 (Sosa v. Mulroy) 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
Sosa v. Mulroy, 182 A.D.2d 1139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Petition unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Prohibition does not lie, where, as here, "there is available an adequate remedy by way of appeal or otherwise” (Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718, 720; see also, Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8, 14, rearg denied 39 NY2d 1058; Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62; Matter of Price v Rath, 177 AD2d 1057). The extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where petitioner has established a clear or legal right to relief and where the action taken or threatened is clearly without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction (Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to Article 78.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Related

MATTER OF STATE OF NY v. King
324 N.E.2d 351 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
Dondi v. Jones
351 N.E.2d 650 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Molea v. Marasco
475 N.E.2d 109 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
Rush v. Mordue
502 N.E.2d 170 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Price v. Rath
177 A.D.2d 1057 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 A.D.2d 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sosa-v-mulroy-nyappdiv-1992.