Staron v. Prudenti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Staron v. Prudenti

222 A.D.2d 592, 636 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13272

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 592 (Staron v. Prudenti) 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

Staron v. Prudenti, 222 A.D.2d 592, 636 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to enjoin enforcement of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 7, 1993, which among other things, awarded title to premises located at 513 12th Street, Brooklyn, N. Y., to the respondent Gisela Salomon.

Motion by the respondent Justice A. Gail Prudenti to dismiss the proceeding.

[593]*593Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding and the papers filed in opposition thereto and in support of the motion, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Hart, 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, inter alia, to enjoin enforcement of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 7, 1993, which among other things, awarded title to premises located at 513 12th Street, Brooklyn, N. Y., to the respondent Gisela Salomon.

Motion by the respondent Justice A. Gail Prudenti to dismiss the proceeding.

[593]*593Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding and the papers filed in opposition thereto and in support of the motion, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 592, 636 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staron-v-prudenti-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack