Matter of Goldman v. Lasak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Goldman v. Lasak

120 A.D.3d 1417, 992 N.Y.S.2d 440

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2014

Docket2014-05394

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1417 (Matter of Goldman v. Lasak) 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 Goldman v. Lasak, 120 A.D.3d 1417, 992 N.Y.S.2d 440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents to “comply with CPL 190.50 (6)” in connection with the prosecution of a criminal action entitled People v Goldman, commenced in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under docket No. 2012QN016484.

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 when 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 act that the petitioner seeks to compel does not involve a mere ministerial duty, nor has the petitioner demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought in the context of a grand jury proceeding.

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents to “comply with CPL 190.50 (6)” in connection with the prosecution of a criminal action entitled People v Goldman, commenced in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under docket No. 2012QN016484.

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 when 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 act that the petitioner seeks to compel does not involve a mere ministerial duty, nor has the petitioner demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought in the context of a grand jury proceeding.

Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1417, 992 N.Y.S.2d 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-goldman-v-lasak-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack