Court Opinion

ID: 4153052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-15 20:11:42.438344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:34.779303
License: Public Domain

Matter of Williams v Warhit (2017 NY Slip Op 01872)

Matter of Williams v Warhit

2017 NY Slip Op 01872

Decided on March 15, 2017

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 15, 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
ROBERT J. MILLER
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

2017-00764

[*1]In the Matter of Ariel Williams, petitioner,
vBarry E. Warhit, etc., et al., respondents. William T. Martin, Somers, NY, for petitioner.

John W. McConnell, New York, NY (Lee Alan Adlerstein of counsel), for respondent Barry E. Warhit.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco and William C. Milaccio of counsel), respondent pro se.

DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Barry E. Warhit, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, from determining a certain motion, and in the nature of mandamus to compel the assignment of that motion to another Justice.
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
"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; see Matter of Rush v Mordue , 68 NY2d 348, 352). 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). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court