Mantel v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mantel v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

277 A.D.2d 96, 715 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11985

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

DecidedNovember 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 96 (Mantel v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct) 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

Mantel v. New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 277 A.D.2d 96, 715 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about September 30, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent Commission to investigate petitioner attorney’s complaint of judicial misconduct, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner lacks standing to assert that, under Judiciary Law § 44 (1), respondent is required to investigate all facially meritorious complaints of judicial misconduct. Respondent’s determination whether or not a complaint on its face lacks merit involves an exercise of discretion that is not amenable to mandamus (cf., Matter of Dyno v Rose, 260 AD2d 694, 698, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 998, lv denied 94 NY2d 753). Concur— Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about September 30, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent Commission to investigate petitioner attorney’s complaint of judicial misconduct, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner lacks standing to assert that, under Judiciary Law § 44 (1), respondent is required to investigate all facially meritorious complaints of judicial misconduct. Respondent’s determination whether or not a complaint on its face lacks merit involves an exercise of discretion that is not amenable to mandamus (cf., Matter of Dyno v Rose, 260 AD2d 694, 698, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 998, lv denied 94 NY2d 753). Concur— Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 96, 715 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mantel-v-new-york-state-commission-on-judicial-conduct-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack