IN RE: UNDER 21 doing business as Covenant House New York (2024)

Petition seeking a writ of prohibition and mandamus to compel against respondents, unanimously denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed, without costs.

With respect to that aspect of the petition seeking a writ of prohibition, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that respondent Drysdale has acted or threatens to act without or in excess of jurisdiction, and that petitioner has a clear legal right to relief (see generally Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 352–355, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170 [1986];  Matter of Sang Seok Na v. Cohen, 223 A.D.3d 594, 595, 202 N.Y.S.3d 121 [1st Dept. 2024]).  To the extent the petition can be read to seek a writ of mandamus to compel, petitioner has identified no purely ministerial act that respondents failed to undertake, and that petitioner has a clear legal right (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County, Inc. v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16, 439 N.Y.S.2d 882, 422 N.E.2d 542 [1981]).