You are here: / / Criteria for Prohbition and Mandamus Actions Explained

Criteria for Prohbition and Mandamus Actions Explained

The Second Department, in finding Supreme Court properly denied the petition against a judge, explained the criteria for prohibition and mandamus actions:

“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” … . “Prohibition will not lie, however, simply to correct trial errors” … and may not be employed as a means of seeking collateral review of mere trial errors of substantive law or procedure, no matter how egregious the error might be … .

“The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought” … . Mandamus will not lie if the action sought to be compelled involves an exercise of discretion or reasoned judgment … . Matter of Jordan v Levine, 2014 NY Slip Op 02934, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPOINTED A GUARDIAN FOR THE CHILD AND MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT’S FINDING THAT FREEING THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION WOULD NOT BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS (SECOND DEPT).
THE COVID STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLL FROM MARCH TO NOVEMBER 2020 DID NOT ONLY APPLY TO ACTIONS WHOSE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED DURING THAT PERIOD; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED NO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN THE DEFENDANTS’ HANDLING OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGES WERE SPECULATIVE MERELY POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT PROVEN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDING UTTERLY REFUTED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN COERCED INTO SETTLING, THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT),
Evidence of Physical Injury (re Assault) Insufficient
Forum Selection Clause in Nursing Home Admission Agreement Enforceable

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Application to File Late Notice of Claim (One Month Late) on Behalf of Infant... Criteria for Review of Rulings on Variances Explained