Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP v. Schack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP v. Schack

85 A.D.3d 1192, 925 N.Y.S.2d 885

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

DecidedJune 28, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.3d 1192 (Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP v. Schack) 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

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP v. Schack, 85 A.D.3d 1192, 925 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition and mandamus, inter alia, to compel Arthur M. Schack, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to vacate an order of the same court dated January 31, 2011.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Sgroi, 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 Arthur M. Schack, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to vacate an order of the same court dated January 31, 2011.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 1192, 925 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windels-marx-lane-mittendorf-llp-v-schack-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack