Hamilton v. Chambers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamilton v. Chambers

35 A.D.3d 859, 826 N.Y.S.2d 724

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 859 (Hamilton v. Chambers) 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

Hamilton v. Chambers, 35 A.D.3d 859, 826 N.Y.S.2d 724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel Cheryl Chambers, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to conduct proceedings wherein the petitioner may submit exculpatory evidence with regard to his motion pursuant to CPL article 440, which was denied by order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 17, 2006, and application for leave 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 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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Miller, J.E, Crane, Lifson and Dillon, 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, to compel Cheryl Chambers, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to conduct proceedings wherein the petitioner may submit exculpatory evidence with regard to his motion pursuant to CPL article 440, which was denied by order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 17, 2006, and application for leave 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 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. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Miller, J.E, Crane, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 859, 826 N.Y.S.2d 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-chambers-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack