Robinson v. Spinner
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Jordan v. Levine (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Jordan v. Levine (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Gonzalez v. Village of Port Chester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Gonzalez v. Village of Port Chester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
“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 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. Angiolillo, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.