Tyler v. Kramer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tyler v. Kramer

215 A.D.2d 397, 625 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4761

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

DecidedMay 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 397 (Tyler v. Kramer) 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

Tyler v. Kramer, 215 A.D.2d 397, 625 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent to accept the petitioner’s amended complaint and appoint a process server to serve the defendants in a civil action entitled Tyler v Wright, and to enjoin the respondent from discriminating or retaliating against the petitioner as a result of commencing this proceeding.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding.

Upon 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). Similarly, 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. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Friedmann, 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 and mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent to accept the petitioner’s amended complaint and appoint a process server to serve the defendants in a civil action entitled Tyler v Wright, and to enjoin the respondent from discriminating or retaliating against the petitioner as a result of commencing this proceeding.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding.

Upon 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). Similarly, 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. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 397, 625 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-kramer-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack