Opinion
2019–00825
05-01-2019
In the Matter of Murat ATES, Petitioner, v. Andrew CRECCA, etc., et al., Respondents.
Murat Ates, Port Jefferson, NY, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Melissa Ysaguirre of counsel), for respondents.
Murat Ates, Port Jefferson, NY, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Melissa Ysaguirre of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT 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 N.Y.2d 564, 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297 ; see Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 352, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170 ). 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 N.Y.2d 12, 16, 439 N.Y.S.2d 882, 422 N.E.2d 542 ). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. In addition, the petitioner cannot seek declaratory relief in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see CPLR 3017 ).
DILLON, J.P., MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.