General
In the Matter of Thomas Solheim, Petitioner, v. Gary J. Weber, as Judge of the Suffolk County Court, et al., Respondents
68 A.D.3d 1002889 N.Y.S.2d 867·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2009·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of Thomas Solheim, Petitioner, v Gary J. Weber, as Judge of the Suffolk County Court, et al., Respondents.
[889 NYS2d 867]
[MAJORITY]
“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 petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Thompson v Griffin, 58 AD 3d 637 [2009]; Matter of Weissman v Lange, 4 AD3d 478 [2004]; see also Matter of Traynor v Rosato, 275 AD2d 326 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Belen and Austin, JJ, concur.