
    In the Matter of Tyrone Houston, Petitioner, v Matthew J. D’Emic et al., Respondents.
    [918 NYS2d 887]
   “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 extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]).

The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.  