Matter of Rowe v. Quinlan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Rowe v. Quinlan

181 N.Y.S.3d 901, 2023 NY Slip Op 00668

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2023

Docket2022-06605

StatusPublished

This text of 181 N.Y.S.3d 901 (Matter of Rowe v. Quinlan) 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 Rowe v. Quinlan, 181 N.Y.S.3d 901, 2023 NY Slip Op 00668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Matter of Rowe v Quinlan (2023 NY Slip Op 00668)

Matter of Rowe v Quinlan

2023 NY Slip Op 00668

Decided on February 8, 2023

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 February 8, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.

2022-06605

[*1]In the Matter of Roger. Rowe, etc., petitioner,

v

Robert F. Quinlan, etc., et al., respondents. Roger Rowe, suing herein as Roger . Rowe, Amityville, NY, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Steven A. Sutro of counsel), for respondent Robert F. Quinlan.

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Thomas F. Whelan, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, in effect, to vacate two orders, dated February 4, 2019, and September 21, 2021, issued in an action entitled Federal National Mortgage Association v Rowe , commenced in that court under Index No. 1729/10.

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.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., MALTESE, DOWLING and WARHIT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court

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