Court Opinion

ID: 5829153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 21:43:03.121712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:23.798325
License: Public Domain

*1008“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]). Similarly, 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]).
The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Covello, J.R, Angiolillo, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.