You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Lupo v. Hurowitz

Citations: 210 A.D.2d 335; 620 N.Y.S.2d 289; 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12603

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 11, 1994; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a proceeding under CPLR Article 78 in which the petitioner sought prohibition and mandamus against Justice Barry Hurowitz, other Justices of the Supreme Court of Kings County, Republic National Bank of New York, and Jennifer Lupo. The petitioner aimed to prevent actions regarding a specific case in Kings County and to compel its dismissal by Justice Hurowitz. Respondents filed motions to dismiss the proceeding. The court, after reviewing the petition and related documents, granted the motions to dismiss, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding without costs. The court clarified that prohibition is only applicable when there is a clear legal right, specifically if a court acts without jurisdiction or beyond its powers. Similarly, a mandamus can only compel a ministerial act if there is a clear legal right to such relief. The petitioner failed to demonstrate such a clear legal right, resulting in the dismissal of the proceeding, with Judges Thompson, Lawrence, O’Brien, and Friedmann concurring with the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Article 78 Proceedings

Application: A petition under CPLR Article 78 was dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to establish a clear legal right to relief.

Reasoning: The petitioner failed to establish such a right, leading to the dismissal, with Judges Thompson, Lawrence, O’Brien, and Friedmann concurring.

Mandamus under CPLR Article 78

Application: Mandamus applies only when there is a clear legal right to compel the performance of a ministerial act.

Reasoning: Similarly, mandamus can only compel the performance of a ministerial act when there is a clear legal right to that relief.

Prohibition under CPLR Article 78

Application: Prohibition is limited to circumstances where a court acts without jurisdiction or exceeds its authority.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that prohibition is only available when there is a clear legal right, particularly when a court acts without jurisdiction or exceeds its powers.