Matter of Jackson v. Delligatti
This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 05752 (Matter of Jackson v. Delligatti) 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
| Matter of Jackson v Delligatti |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 05752 |
| Decided on October 14, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 14, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
HECTOR D. LASALLE
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
2020-01886 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT
v
Angelo A. Delligatti, etc., respondent.
Erwin Jackson, Elmira, NY, petitioner pro se.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent, Angelo A. Delligatti, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, from enforcing an order dated December 18, 2019, in two criminal actions commenced against the petitioner in the County Court, Nassau County, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.
ORDERED that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022(b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
"Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers" (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman , 71 NY2d 564, 569; see Matter of Rush v Mordue , 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2020 NY Slip Op 05752, 187 A.D.3d 912, 130 N.Y.S.3d 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-jackson-v-delligatti-nyappdiv-2020.