Encarnacion v. Sawyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Encarnacion v. Sawyer

26 A.D.3d 261, 809 N.Y.S.2d 76

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 261 (Encarnacion v. Sawyer) 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

Encarnacion v. Sawyer, 26 A.D.3d 261, 809 N.Y.S.2d 76 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered August 9, 2005, denying the petition and dismissing this proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner does not refute the IAS court’s finding that there is no basis for CPLR article 78 relief against respondents Sawyer and Roberts in their individual capacities. As to the corporate respondent, even if it is subject to such a proceeding, the court [262]*262correctly found that petitioner did not establish ABC had any obligation to preserve or return to him the documents he had sent in on his own initiative, or to broadcast his unsolicited story. The obligation, if any, to return papers voluntarily submitted to a party who did not ask for them is not a duty specifically enjoined by law, or of the sort traditionally enforceable in a mandamus proceeding. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered August 9, 2005, denying the petition and dismissing this proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner does not refute the IAS court’s finding that there is no basis for CPLR article 78 relief against respondents Sawyer and Roberts in their individual capacities. As to the corporate respondent, even if it is subject to such a proceeding, the court [262]*262correctly found that petitioner did not establish ABC had any obligation to preserve or return to him the documents he had sent in on his own initiative, or to broadcast his unsolicited story. The obligation, if any, to return papers voluntarily submitted to a party who did not ask for them is not a duty specifically enjoined by law, or of the sort traditionally enforceable in a mandamus proceeding. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 261, 809 N.Y.S.2d 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/encarnacion-v-sawyer-nyappdiv-2006.