Legal Opinion
MATTER OF AM. TRANSIT INS. CO. v. Corcoran
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 2, 1985PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice E. Leo Milonas.
In affirming, we note that respondents have not objected to the use of prohibition as a means of challenging respondent Superintendent’s action in appointing respondent Liebowitz to hear the charges against it. Prohibition is not available to prevent administrative action unless the agency is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 559; 23 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Civ Prac § 145:210) and even then it is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hecht v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Matter of City of Newburgh v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd. of the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
3Cited by36 opinions
- Kreppein v. Celotex Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Washington v. Albany Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Fili v. Matson Motors, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- McIntosh v. MoscripAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Bunt v. Altec Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. New York · 1997
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.