Matter of Raheem v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Raheem v. Parker

132 A.D.3d 879, 17 N.Y.S.3d 887, 2015 NY Slip Op 07667, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7738

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2015

Docket2011-00594

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 879 (Matter of Raheem v. Parker) 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 Raheem v. Parker, 132 A.D.3d 879, 17 N.Y.S.3d 887, 2015 NY Slip Op 07667, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Sheryl L. Parker, in effect, to vacate an order dated November 10, 2009, which denied the petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPL 160.50 (1) to seal the records of a criminal proceeding entitled People v Whitaker, Also Known as Raheem, commenced under Kangs County indictment No. 649/76, and thereupon to direct that those records be sealed.

*880 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” (Matter of Sullivan v Morgenstern, 127 AD3d 980, 980 [2015]; see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). “Mandamus will not lie if the action sought to be compelled involves an exercise of discretion or reasoned judgment” (Matter of Jordan v Levine, 116 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2014]; see Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 NY2d 525, 539 [1984]; Matter of Jacobs v Parga, 98 AD3d 741, 742 [2012]; Matter of Daniels v Lewis, 95 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2012]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Leventhal and Dickerson, 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 Sheryl L. Parker, in effect, to vacate an order dated November 10, 2009, which denied the petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPL 160.50 (1) to seal the records of a criminal proceeding entitled People v Whitaker, Also Known as Raheem, commenced under Kangs County indictment No. 649/76, and thereupon to direct that those records be sealed.

*880 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” (Matter of Sullivan v Morgenstern, 127 AD3d 980, 980 [2015]; see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). “Mandamus will not lie if the action sought to be compelled involves an exercise of discretion or reasoned judgment” (Matter of Jordan v Levine, 116 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2014]; see Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 NY2d 525, 539 [1984]; Matter of Jacobs v Parga, 98 AD3d 741, 742 [2012]; Matter of Daniels v Lewis, 95 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2012]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Leventhal and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 879, 17 N.Y.S.3d 887, 2015 NY Slip Op 07667, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-raheem-v-parker-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack