Chapman v. Patsalos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chapman v. Patsalos

173 A.D.2d 818

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

DecidedMay 31, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D.2d 818 (Chapman v. Patsalos) 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

Chapman v. Patsalos, 173 A.D.2d 818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (1) to vacate a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, rendered November 13, 1990, (2) to dismiss Orange County Indictment No. 196/89, and (3) to release the petitioner from the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services.

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

"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; accord, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 353). Likewise, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus lies to compel the. performance of a purely ministerial act only where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). Inasmuch as the petitioner seeks direct review of his judgment of conviction under the guise of this special proceeding, the relief requested is clearly inappropriate and the proceeding is dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Fiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (1) to vacate a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, rendered November 13, 1990, (2) to dismiss Orange County Indictment No. 196/89, and (3) to release the petitioner from the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services.

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

"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; accord, Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 353). Likewise, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus lies to compel the. performance of a purely ministerial act only where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought (see, Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). Inasmuch as the petitioner seeks direct review of his judgment of conviction under the guise of this special proceeding, the relief requested is clearly inappropriate and the proceeding is dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Fiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-patsalos-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack