Majority
p. 1099In the Matter of Tyrone Houston, Petitioner, v Matthew J. D’Emic et al., Respondents. [918 NYS2d 887]
“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
p. 1100
[1986]). 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 [1981]).
The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Holtzman v. Goldman 71 NY2d 564 at 569 p. 1099
- Rush v. Mordue 68 NY2d 348 at 352 p. 1099
- Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County, Inc. v. Scheinman 53 NY2d 12 at 16 p. 1100