Donald C. v. Patsalos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Donald C. v. Patsalos

261 A.D.2d 542, 688 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5437

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

DecidedMay 17, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 542 (Donald C. 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

Donald C. v. Patsalos, 261 A.D.2d 542, 688 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5437 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Justice to vacate a decision and order dated September 25, 1998, in a proceeding entitled Matter of Donald C., pending in the Supreme Court, Orange County, under Index No. L-89/96, which struck the petitioner’s demand for a trial by jury.

[543]*543Adjudged 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 McGinity, 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 Justice to vacate a decision and order dated September 25, 1998, in a proceeding entitled Matter of Donald C., pending in the Supreme Court, Orange County, under Index No. L-89/96, which struck the petitioner’s demand for a trial by jury.

[543]*543Adjudged 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 McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 542, 688 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-c-v-patsalos-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack