Matter of Matthews v. Daniels-DePeyster

2024 NY Slip Op 00315

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 24, 2024
• Docket: 2023-12243
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Matthews v Daniels-DePeyster (2024 NY Slip Op 00315)

Matter of Matthews v Daniels-DePeyster

2024 NY Slip Op 00315

Decided on January 24, 2024

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 January 24, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
HELEN VOUTSINAS
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.

2023-12243

[*1]In the Matter of Angelo Matthews, petitioner,

v

Claudia Daniels-DePeyster, etc., et al., respondents. Carol Gray and Associates, P.C., Richmond Hill, NY, for petitioner.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Joya C. Sonnenfeldt of counsel), for respondent Claudia Daniels-DePeyster.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), respondent pro se.

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents, Claudia Daniels-DePeyster, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, and Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Kings County, from enforcing an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 2, 2023, issued in an action entitled People v Matthews, pending in that court under Docket No. SCR-74909-22, inter alia, directing the petitioner to submit to a buccal swab for the purpose of DNA testing by a date certain.

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 (see Matter of Drummonds v Harrington, 158 AD3d 797).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

LASALLE, P.J., MALTESE, VOUTSINAS and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Acting Clerk of the Court