Francois v. Dolan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Francois v. Dolan

263 A.D.2d 483, 693 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7891

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 483 (Francois v. Dolan) 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

Francois v. Dolan, 263 A.D.2d 483, 693 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus and prohibition, inter alia, to compel the respondent Thomas J. Dolan, Judge of the County Court, Dutchess County, to entertain the petitioner’s plea of guilty in a criminal action entitled People v Kendall Francois, pending under Dutchess County Superseding Indictment No. 122/98.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘[Prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers’ ” (Matter of Rondon v Kohm, 229 AD2d 395, quoting Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569). 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).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, 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 and prohibition, inter alia, to compel the respondent Thomas J. Dolan, Judge of the County Court, Dutchess County, to entertain the petitioner’s plea of guilty in a criminal action entitled People v Kendall Francois, pending under Dutchess County Superseding Indictment No. 122/98.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘[Prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers’ ” (Matter of Rondon v Kohm, 229 AD2d 395, quoting Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569). 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).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 483, 693 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francois-v-dolan-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack