Matter of Lancaster v. Chun
This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 01201 (Matter of Lancaster v. Chun) 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 Lancaster v Chun |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01201 |
| Decided on March 4, 2026 |
| 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 March 4, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
LILLIAN WAN
JAMES P. MCCORMACK
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.
2025-14955 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT
v
Danny Chun, etc., respondent. Herman Lancaster, Ossining, NY, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, Danny Chun, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to sign a proposed order to show cause in an action entitled People v Lancaster , commenced in that court under Indictment No. 787/15. Motion by the petitioner for a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion 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 motion 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.
BARROS, J.P., WAN, MCCORMACK and HOM, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
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
2026 NY Slip Op 01201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-lancaster-v-chun-nyappdiv-2026.