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
Pulling Defendant from Inside His Home for Warrantless Arrest Violated the Fourth Amendment
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT TOWN’S AND POLICE-OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL AND DEMONSTRATED THE OFFICERS DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD WHEN PURSUING PLAINTIFF MOTORCYCLIST, WHO CRASHED AND WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED; THERE WAS NO INDICATION FURTHER DISCOVERY WOULD UNCOVER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​
HERE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO UPDATE HIS ADDRESS WITH THE DMV OR USPS WAS NOT “AFFIRMATIVE CONDUCT” DESIGNED TO AVOID SERVICE OF PROCESS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED A HEARING ON WHETHER HE WAS PROPERLY SERVED (SECOND DEPT).
Hearing Required for Motion for Resentencing
No Liability to Third Party Stemming from Contract to Install a Sign
STATEMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S OUT-OF-STATE EXPERT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; CPLR 2106 REQUIRES A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM A DENTIST LICENSED IN ANOTHER STATE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE; EVEN PROPER SUBSTITUTE SERVICE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
Claimed Gestation Period of 303 Days Requires Reliable Medical Evidence It Is Scientifically Possible/Acknowledgment of Paternity by Another Did Not Preclude Petitioner from Bringing His Paternity Action

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