Matter of Pelczar v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Pelczar v. Kelly

131 A.D.3d 700, 15 N.Y.S.3d 695

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

DecidedAugust 26, 2015

Docket2015-04132

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 700 (Matter of Pelczar v. Kelly) 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 Pelczar v. Kelly, 131 A.D.3d 700, 15 N.Y.S.3d 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, Peter J. Kelly, the Surrogate of Queens County, to dismiss a proceeding entitled Estate of Pelczar, pending in the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, under file No. 2014-2284.

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 *701 of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and Hinds-Radix, 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 mandamus to compel the respondent, Peter J. Kelly, the Surrogate of Queens County, to dismiss a proceeding entitled Estate of Pelczar, pending in the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, under file No. 2014-2284.

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 *701 of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 700, 15 N.Y.S.3d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-pelczar-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack