Matter of Maxwell v. Zambelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Maxwell v. Zambelli

136 A.D.3d 827, 24 N.Y.S.3d 517

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 10, 2016

Docket2015-07932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 827 (Matter of Maxwell v. Zambelli) 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.

Bluebook

Matter of Maxwell v. Zambelli, 136 A.D.3d 827, 24 N.Y.S.3d 517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit Barbara G. Zambelli, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, from determining the petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of conviction in an underlying criminal action entitled People v Maxwell, filed under Westchester County indictment No. 1481/00 and, in ef *828 feet, in the nature of mandamus to compel Barbara G. Zambelli to decide the petitioner’s motion for recusal, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief 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 branch of the petition which is, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent to decide the petitioner’s motion for recusal is denied as academic, and the petition is otherwise denied on the merits and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The branch of the petition which is to compel Barbara G. Zambelli, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to decide the petitioner’s motion for recusal has been rendered academic in light of the determination of that motion in an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 17, 2015.

“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 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to relief in the nature of prohibition.

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit Barbara G. Zambelli, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, from determining the petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of conviction in an underlying criminal action entitled People v Maxwell, filed under Westchester County indictment No. 1481/00 and, in ef *828 feet, in the nature of mandamus to compel Barbara G. Zambelli to decide the petitioner’s motion for recusal, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.