Matter of Randolph v. Ambro
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 04573 (Matter of Randolph v. Ambro) 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
Matter of Randolph v Ambro (2025 NY Slip Op 04573)
| Matter of Randolph v Ambro |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 04573 |
| Decided on August 6, 2025 |
| 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 August 6, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
LARA J. GENOVESI, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
LILLIAN WAN
LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
2024-08393 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT
v
Richard Ambro, etc., respondent. Jordan Randolph, Ossining, NY, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Richard Ambro, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate an order dated November 3, 2023, issued in an action entitled People v Randolph , pending in that court under Indictment No. 70183/20, and application by the petitioner for a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses.
Upon the petition, and the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
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., WOOTEN, WAN and VENTURA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 04573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-randolph-v-ambro-nyappdiv-2025.