Matter of Jelen v. Munoz
This text of Matter of Jelen v. Munoz (Matter of Jelen v. Munoz) 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
Matter of Jelen v Munoz
2026 NY Slip Op 03442
June 3, 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 Sean Jelen, petitioner,
v
Sandra M. Munoz, etc., et al., respondents.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on June 3, 2026
2026-00954
Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Carl J. Landicino
Laurence L. Love, JJ.
Sean Jelen, South Abington Township, Pennsylvania, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Bronwyn M. James of counsel), respondent pro se and for respondents Sandra M. Munoz and Caelah Chavis.
David L. Martin, Mineola, NY, for respondent Susan Jelen.
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Sandra M. Munoz, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from presiding over an action entitled Jelen v Jelen, pending in that court under Index No. 710076/21.
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 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.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matter of Jelen v. Munoz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-jelen-v-munoz-nyappdiv-2026.