Majority
p. 1147In the Matter of Troy Sneed, Petitioner, v John P. Walsh et al., Respondents. [929 NYS2d 878]
“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 extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where
p. 1148
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.
The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Holtzman v. Goldman 71 NY2d 564 at 569 p. 1147
- Rush v. Mordue 68 NY2d 348 at 352 p. 1147
- Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County, Inc. v. Scheinman 53 NY2d 12 at 16 p. 1148