Antoine v. Levin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antoine v. Levin

260 A.D.2d 630, 687 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4312

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 630 (Antoine v. Levin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antoine v. Levin, 260 A.D.2d 630, 687 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel Wilbur A. Levin, Commissioner of Jurors, Kings County, to disclose to the petitioner the names and addresses of the jurors who comprised the jury in an action entitled Gex Antoine v Frederick Gulmi, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 23269/93.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel Wilbur A. Levin, Commissioner of Jurors, Kings County, to disclose to the petitioner the names and addresses of the jurors who comprised the jury in an action entitled Gex Antoine v Frederick Gulmi, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 23269/93.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 630, 687 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antoine-v-levin-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack