Matter of Canestro v. Pineda-Kirwan

132 A.D.3d 863, 17 N.Y.S.3d 899
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 21, 2015
Docket2015-07711
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

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.

Bluebook
Matter of Canestro v. Pineda-Kirwan, 132 A.D.3d 863, 17 N.Y.S.3d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

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.

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Morales v. Singas
2020 NY Slip Op 3110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Richmond v. Cohen
2019 NY Slip Op 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Wheeler v. Kahn
2017 NY Slip Op 6366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.