Legal Opinion
Solheim v. Weber
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 15, 2009PublishedCited by 3 opinions
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 Thompson v Griffin, 58 AD 3d 637 [2009]; Matter of Weissman v Lange, 4 AD3d 478 [2004]; see also Matter of Traynor v…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rush v. MordueNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Holtzman v. GoldmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Weissman v. LangeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Thompson v. GriffinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Traynor ex rel. Baxter v. RosatoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
3Cited by3 opinions
- Edwards v. DeRosaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Matter of Miller v. FoleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Edwards v. DeRosaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012