Frazier v. Hudson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frazier v. Hudson

85 A.D.3d 787, 924 N.Y.S.2d 850

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

DecidedJune 7, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.3d 787 (Frazier v. Hudson) 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

Frazier v. Hudson, 85 A.D.3d 787, 924 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent James Hudson, a Justice of the County Court, Suffolk County, to vacate a judgment rendered December 5, 2008, convicting the petitioner of murder in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty under indictment Nos. 573B-07 and 565-07, and application by the petitioner to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

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 proceeding is denied and the petition 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 has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Belen and Miller, 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 to compel the respondent James Hudson, a Justice of the County Court, Suffolk County, to vacate a judgment rendered December 5, 2008, convicting the petitioner of murder in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty under indictment Nos. 573B-07 and 565-07, and application by the petitioner to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

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 proceeding is denied and the petition 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 has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Belen and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 787, 924 N.Y.S.2d 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-hudson-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack