Fonseca v. People

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fonseca v. People

269 A.D.2d 530, 704 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2006

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 530 (Fonseca v. People) 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

Fonseca v. People, 269 A.D.2d 530, 704 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, in effect, to compel the respondent John B. Latella s/h/a Justice Latell to vacate and set aside the denial of the petitioner’s “motion to renew and reargue for probable cause and suppression hearing”, and application for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted; 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 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. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Smith, 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, in effect, to compel the respondent John B. Latella s/h/a Justice Latell to vacate and set aside the denial of the petitioner’s “motion to renew and reargue for probable cause and suppression hearing”, and application for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted; 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 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. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 530, 704 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fonseca-v-people-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack