Turansky v. Scheinkman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turansky v. Scheinkman

69 A.D.3d 865, 895 N.Y.2d 435

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 865 (Turansky v. Scheinkman) 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

Turansky v. Scheinkman, 69 A.D.3d 865, 895 N.Y.2d 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[866]*866The 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]). In addition, “[b]ecause 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 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Balkin, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

[866]*866The 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]). In addition, “[b]ecause 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 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Balkin, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 865, 895 N.Y.2d 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turansky-v-scheinkman-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack