Hockley v. Nicolai

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hockley v. Nicolai

8 A.D.3d 278, 777 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7483

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

DecidedJune 1, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 278 (Hockley v. Nicolai) 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

Hockley v. Nicolai, 8 A.D.3d 278, 777 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel Justice Francis A. Nicolai to reassign to another Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, an action entitled People of the State of New York v Delgado, pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under Index No. 20925/02.

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 only when there exists a clear light 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. Goldstein, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Cozier, 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 Justice Francis A. Nicolai to reassign to another Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, an action entitled People of the State of New York v Delgado, pending in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, under Index No. 20925/02.

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 only when there exists a clear light 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. Goldstein, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 278, 777 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hockley-v-nicolai-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack