Matter of Jackson v. Hecht
This text of Matter of Jackson v. Hecht (Matter of Jackson v. Hecht) 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
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
Matter of Jackson v Hecht
2026 NY Slip Op 02114
April 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 Nathaniel Jackson, petitioner,
v
John T. Hecht, etc., et al., respondents.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 8, 2026
2025-01749 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT
Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Carl J. Landicino
Susan Quirk, JJ.
Nathaniel Jackson, East Elmhurst, NY, petitioner pro se.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent John T. Hecht, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to dismiss the indictment in an action entitled People v Jackson, commenced in that court under Indictment No. 73295/23, and application by the petitioner for a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses.
ORDERED that the application for a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022(b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,
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.
DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court