Youkelsone v. Barasch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Youkelsone v. Barasch

289 A.D.2d 499, 735 N.Y.S.2d 429, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12917

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 499 (Youkelsone v. Barasch) 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

Youkelsone v. Barasch, 289 A.D.2d 499, 735 N.Y.S.2d 429, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to preclude Melvin S. Barasch, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from adjourning the return date of the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in an action entitled Federal Natl. Mtge. Assoc, v Youkelsone, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 36834/2001.

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. Santucci, J. P., Adams, Crane and Cozier, 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 preclude Melvin S. Barasch, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from adjourning the return date of the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in an action entitled Federal Natl. Mtge. Assoc, v Youkelsone, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 36834/2001.

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. Santucci, J. P., Adams, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 499, 735 N.Y.S.2d 429, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youkelsone-v-barasch-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack