Dolan v. Efman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dolan v. Efman

94 A.D.3d 1116, 942 N.Y.S.2d 810

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

DecidedApril 24, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 1116 (Dolan v. Efman) 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

Dolan v. Efman, 94 A.D.3d 1116, 942 N.Y.S.2d 810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent, Martin I. Efman, a Judge of the County Court, Suffolk County, to vacate an order of the same court dated October 25, 2011, which denied the petitioner’s motion for release of his presentence investigation report, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

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 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. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Chambers, 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 the respondent, Martin I. Efman, a Judge of the County Court, Suffolk County, to vacate an order of the same court dated October 25, 2011, which denied the petitioner’s motion for release of his presentence investigation report, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

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 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. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 1116, 942 N.Y.S.2d 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dolan-v-efman-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack