Matter of Lubrano v. Bourne-Clarke
This text of Matter of Lubrano v. Bourne-Clarke (Matter of Lubrano v. Bourne-Clarke) 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 Lubrano v Bourne-Clarke
2026 NY Slip Op 01965
April 1, 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 Giuseppe Lubrano, petitioner,
v
Sharon Bourne-Clarke, etc., respondent. Giuseppe Lubrano, Brooklyn, NY, petitioner pro se.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 1, 2026
2025-14805 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT
Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.
William G. Ford
Helen Voutsinas
Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Miranda Onnen of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Sharon Bourne-Clarke, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to set aside the sale of certain real property, to conduct a hearing pursuant to CPLR 5015, and to appoint a referee pursuant to CPLR 4312, in an underlying civil action entitled Lubrano v Lubrano, pending in that court under Index No. 550642/20, 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.
GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court