From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mahl v. Donovan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1993
191 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 15, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County.


Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the temporary restraining order continued in an order to show cause dated February 11, 1993, is vacated.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right and, in cases where judicial authority is challenged, only when the court acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers (see, e.g., Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569; Matter of Lipari v. Owens, 70 N.Y.2d 731). Prohibition is not available where, as here, there exists an adequate remedy at law, whether by appeal or otherwise (see, Matter of Molea v. Marasco, 64 N.Y.2d 718). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mahl v. Donovan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1993
191 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Mahl v. Donovan

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOEL D. MAHL et al., Petitioners, v. W. DENIS DONOVAN et…

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

Date published: Mar 15, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
595 N.Y.S.2d 107

Citing Cases

Hoffman v. Westchester Cnty.

However, prohibition does not lie, even if there has been an excess of jurisdiction, if there is available an…