From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peirez v. Caso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 1979
72 A.D.2d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Opinion

November 19, 1979


In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondent Nassau County officers "to call in and/or establish a schedule for the retirement" of a debt due, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 12, 1979, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. An article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus does not lie unless the act sought to be compelled is ministerial, nondiscretionary and nonjudgmental, and is premised upon specific statutory authority mandating performance in a specified manner (see Matter of Stutzman v Fahey, 62 A.D.2d 1070; Matter of Posner v Levitt, 37 A.D.2d 331). The act here sought to be compelled — collection of a debt due from respondent Nassau County Bridge Authority to respondent Nassau County in connection with the construction of the Atlantic Beach Bridge — does not meet the above criteria. Titone, J.P., O'Connor, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Peirez v. Caso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 1979
72 A.D.2d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)
Case details for

Peirez v. Caso

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DAVID H. PEIREZ et al., Appellants, v. RALPH G. CASO, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 19, 1979

Citations

72 A.D.2d 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Citing Cases

Schumacher v. Douglas-Worghs Realty Corp.

The remedy of mandamus is only available to compel an act that is ministerial and non-discretionary,…

Matter of Rosen-Michaels v. Cohoes

This court agrees with the contentions of the respondents. An article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus…