Matter of Bautista v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 8, 2026·No. 2026-02953·Published

Opinion

Matter of Bautista v Joseph - 2026 NY Slip Op 04298
skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau
Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Matter of Bautista v Joseph

2026 NY Slip Op 04298

July 8, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Michele Bautista, petitioner,

v

Cheryl A. Joseph, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on July 8, 2026

2026-02953

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Helen Voutsinas

Laurence L. Love

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Peraino & Buckshaw, PLLC, Uniondale, NY (Nicholas Buckshaw of counsel), for petitioner.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Adam Yefet of counsel), for respondents Cheryl A. Joseph and Andrew A. Crecca.

Wenz Law Firm, P.C, Islandia, NY (Marilyn J. Wenz of counsel), for respondent Matthew Bautista.

[*1]

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Cheryl A. Joseph, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to issue certain orders in an action entitled Bautista v Bautista, pending in that court under Index No. 613252/20, and to stay trial in that action pending hearing and determination of this proceeding.

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). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

The petitioner's remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination or are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., VOUTSINAS, LOVE and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Court Decisions

All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search

Resources

RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting & Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index

About

About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter

Quick Contact Info

17 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: (518) 453-6900

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

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

Matter of Bautista v. Joseph, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Matter of Bautista v. Joseph (Matter of Bautista v. Joseph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Bautista v. Joseph
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026