Doczy v. Rotker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doczy v. Rotker

155 A.D.2d 400, 547 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13954

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 400 (Doczy v. Rotker) 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

Doczy v. Rotker, 155 A.D.2d 400, 547 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alla, to compel the respondent Seymour Rotker, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, to permit the petitioner to offer expert psychiatric evidence at his impeding trial in a criminal action under indictment Number 5894/88.

[401]*401Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act 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 that is not the case in this instance, the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed. Even if we were to consider the instant proceeding as an application for a writ of prohibition, we would deny it (see, Matter of Lipari v Owens, 70 NY2d 731). We note that we have not reached the underlying merits of the petitioner’s legal arguments. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alla, to compel the respondent Seymour Rotker, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, to permit the petitioner to offer expert psychiatric evidence at his impeding trial in a criminal action under indictment Number 5894/88.

[401]*401Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act 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 that is not the case in this instance, the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed. Even if we were to consider the instant proceeding as an application for a writ of prohibition, we would deny it (see, Matter of Lipari v Owens, 70 NY2d 731). We note that we have not reached the underlying merits of the petitioner’s legal arguments. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 400, 547 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doczy-v-rotker-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack