Matter of Canestro v. Pineda-Kirwan
This text of 132 A.D.3d 863 (Matter of Canestro v. Pineda-Kirwan) 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.
Opinion
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Diccia Pineda-Kirwan, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine a pending motion and cross motion in an underlying action entitled Pietrafesa v Canestro, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under index No. 6281/12.
Adjudged that the petition and proceeding are dismissed insofar as asserted against the respondent Gene Pietrafesa, as executor of the estate of Marie Pietrafesa, without costs or disbursements; and it is further
Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits insofar as asserted against the respondent Diccia Pineda-Kirwan, without costs or disbursements.
The petition and proceeding must be dismissed insofar as asserted against Pietrafesa, as he is neither a Judge of a County Court nor a Justice of the Supreme Court and, hence, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding insofar as asserted against him (see CPLR 7804 [b]; 506 [b] [1]; Matter of Nolan v Lungen, 61 NY2d 788, 790 [1984]; Matter of Lawtone-Bowles v Klein, 131 AD3d 697, 698 [2015]).
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 [1981]). With respect to the remaining respondent, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
132 A.D.3d 863, 17 N.Y.S.3d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-canestro-v-pineda-kirwan-nyappdiv-2015.