U.A. Plumbers & Steamfitters v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

U.A. Plumbers & Steamfitters v. City of Niagara Falls

57 A.D.3d 1467, 869 N.Y.2d 830

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 1467 (U.A. Plumbers & Steamfitters v. City of Niagara Falls) 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

U.A. Plumbers & Steamfitters v. City of Niagara Falls, 57 A.D.3d 1467, 869 N.Y.2d 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel respondents to determine whether a certain plumbing company was violating various provisions of the Plumbing Code of respondent City of Niagara Falls (City). The City appeals from a judgment denying respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition and, instead, granting the petition and mandating that respondents conduct a public hearing on the matters at issue in the petition. We reverse.

“The extraordinary remedy of mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only where there exists a clear right to the relief sought” (Matter of Priest v Mareane, 45 AD3d 1474, 1475 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 704 [2008]). Here, petitioner failed to cite to “any statute, rule, regulation or [1468]*1468case law requiring” respondents to investigate the allegations raised by petitioner and thus failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought (Sightseeing Tours of Am., Inc. v Air Pegasus Heliport, Inc., 40 AD3d 354, 355 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 817 [2008]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel respondents to determine whether a certain plumbing company was violating various provisions of the Plumbing Code of respondent City of Niagara Falls (City). The City appeals from a judgment denying respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition and, instead, granting the petition and mandating that respondents conduct a public hearing on the matters at issue in the petition. We reverse.

“The extraordinary remedy of mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only where there exists a clear right to the relief sought” (Matter of Priest v Mareane, 45 AD3d 1474, 1475 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 704 [2008]). Here, petitioner failed to cite to “any statute, rule, regulation or [1468]*1468case law requiring” respondents to investigate the allegations raised by petitioner and thus failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought (Sightseeing Tours of Am., Inc. v Air Pegasus Heliport, Inc., 40 AD3d 354, 355 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 817 [2008]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 1467, 869 N.Y.2d 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ua-plumbers-steamfitters-v-city-of-niagara-falls-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack