Robinson v. Spinner
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
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 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…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County, Inc. v. ScheinmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Rush v. MordueNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Holtzman v. GoldmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
3Cited by4 opinions
- Gonzalez v. Village of Port ChesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Jordan v. LevineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Gonzalez v. Village of Port ChesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Jordan v. LevineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014