Case Name: In the Matter of Brian H. Denker-Youngs, Petitioner, v. David T. Reilly, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-08-31
Citations: 142 A.D.3d 705
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Brian H. Denker-Youngs, Petitioner, v David T. Reilly, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 705–706

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Brian H. Denker-Youngs, Petitioner, v David T. Reilly, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, et al., Respondents.
[36 NYS3d 915]

Opinion:
— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent David T. Reilly, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to recuse himself from presiding over an action entitled Denker-Youngs v Denker-Youngs, pending in that court under index No. 16968/14, and in the nature of prohibition to preclude enforcement of any order issued by the respondent David T. Reilly.
Motion by the respondent David T. Reilly to dismiss the proceeding insofar as asserted against him on the ground, among others, that mandamus and prohibition do not lie. Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,
Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
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 County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). Moreover, "[b]ecause 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 establish a clear legal right to the relief sought.
Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.