Majority
p. 1097In the Matter of Richard L. Fuchs, Appellant, v Sandra A. Forster, Respondent. [919 NYS2d 354]
“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]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Brine v Dubinsky, 115 Misc 2d 572 , 574 [1982]).
The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Covello, J.E, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Holtzman v. Goldman 71 NY2d 564 at 569 p. 1097
- Rush v. Mordue 68 NY2d 348 at 352 p. 1097
- Brine v. Dubinsky 115 Misc 2d 572 at 574 p. 1097