Lawtone-Bowles v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawtone-Bowles v. Klein

83 A.D.3d 843, 920 N.Y.S.2d 687

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent, Carol S. Klein, a Judge of the Family Court, Orange County, to reinstate the petitioner’s pistol permit, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CFLR 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 on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

[844]*844The 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. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent, Carol S. Klein, a Judge of the Family Court, Orange County, to reinstate the petitioner’s pistol permit, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CFLR 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 on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

[844]*844The 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. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Lawtone-Bowles v. Klein, 83 A.D.3d 843, 920 N.Y.S.2d 687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

83 A.D.3d 843 (Lawtone-Bowles v. Klein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related