George v. Carroll

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

George v. Carroll

109 A.D.3d 917, 971 N.Y.S.2d 217

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.3d 917 (George v. Carroll) 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

George v. Carroll, 109 A.D.3d 917, 971 N.Y.S.2d 217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Thomas Carroll, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to grant the petitioner’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPL article 440 to vacate his convictions in two underlying criminal actions, both entitled People v George, commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under indictment Nos. 4166/87 and 11047/90, respectively.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, 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. Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Thomas Carroll, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to grant the petitioner’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPL article 440 to vacate his convictions in two underlying criminal actions, both entitled People v George, commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under indictment Nos. 4166/87 and 11047/90, respectively.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, 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. Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.3d 917, 971 N.Y.S.2d 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-carroll-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack