Case Name: In the Matter of Melody Morse, Petitioner, v. Loren Bailey-Schiffman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kangs County, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-09-28
Citations: 142 A.D.3d 1177
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Melody Morse, Petitioner, v Loren Bailey-Schiffman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kangs County, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Dickerson, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 1177–1177

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Melody Morse, Petitioner, v Loren Bailey-Schiffman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kangs County, et al., Respondents.
[37 NYS3d 907]

Opinion:
Proceeding pursu-
ant to CPLR article 78, inter aha, in the nature of mandamus to compel the issuance of certain judgments in an action entitled Morse v Lee, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 501694/14, and a proceeding entitled Matter of Morse v Bronk, pending in that court under index No. 13140/15, and in the nature of prohibition to preclude the respondent Loren Baily-Schiffman, sued herein as Loren Bailey-Schiffman, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from presiding over that action and that proceeding.
Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will he 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.
Dickerson, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.