Morrison v. Hynes
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is available in limited circumstances only to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act which does not involve the exercise of official discretion or judgment, and only when a clear legal right to the relief sought has been demonstrated (see Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 NY2d 525, 537 [1984]; Matter of Salisbury v Lapidez, 277 AD2d 319 [2000]; Matter of Kusky v Town of Islip, 266 AD2d 460, 461 [1999]; Matter of Perazzo v Lindsay, 30 AD2d 179 [1968], affd 23 NY2d 764 [1968]). Here, the petitioner seeks to compel the performance of acts…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Klostermann v. CuomoNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- People ex rel. Doe v. BeaudoinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Perazzo v. LindsayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
- Perazzo v. LindsayNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Nieblas v. Kings County District AttorneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Johnson v. CorbittAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Johnson v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v. New York City Police DepartmentAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Donnaruma v. CarterNew York Supreme Court · 2013
- Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v. New York City Police DepartmentAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.