“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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where 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. Dickerson, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.
113 A.D.3d 852 •
979 N.Y.S.2d 537
In the Matter of Jalah Knight, Petitioner, v Ronald D. Hollie et al., Respondents.
[979 NYS2d 537]
Knight v. Hollie
113 A.D.3d 852 •
979 N.Y.S.2d 537
Case Details
113 A.D.3d 852
979 N.Y.S.2d 537
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!