From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lupo v. Hurowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 1994
210 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

December 12, 1994


Motions by the respondents to dismiss the proceeding.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and the papers filed in support of the motions and in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the motions are granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, 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; see, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 352). Similarly, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16).

The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lupo v. Hurowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 1994
210 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Lupo v. Hurowitz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of WILLIAM LUPO, Petitioner, v. BARRY HUROWITZ et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 12, 1994

Citations

210 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
620 N.Y.S.2d 289

Citing Cases

ELUL DIAMONDS CO. LTD. v. Z KOR DIAMONDS

In any event, the Court found that the jurisdictional argument was waived by Elul's counsel's participation…