Legal Opinion

Fuchs v. Forster

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

Decided March 22, 2011Published

1Opinion of the Court

“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 petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Brine v Dubinsky, 115 Misc 2d 572, 574 [1982]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rush v. MordueNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Holtzman v. GoldmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. Brine v. DubinskyNew York Supreme Court · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API