Matter of Schieferstein v. Whelan

2026 NY Slip Op 00512
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 4, 2026
Docket2025-14029
StatusPublished

This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 00512 (Matter of Schieferstein v. Whelan) 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 Schieferstein v. Whelan, 2026 NY Slip Op 00512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

Matter of Schieferstein v Whelan (2026 NY Slip Op 00512)
Matter of Schieferstein v Whelan
2026 NY Slip Op 00512
Decided on February 4, 2026
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 4, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
HELEN VOUTSINAS
DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.

2025-14029

[*1]In the Matter of Carmine Schieferstein, petitioner,

v

Thomas F. Whelan, etc., respondent. Carmine Schieferstein, Mastic Beach, NY, petitioner pro se.


Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent, Thomas F. Whelan, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to sign an order to show cause in an action entitled U.S. Bank National Association v Schieferstein , pending in that court under Index No. 617683/16, and to stay the sale of the subject property pending hearing and determination of this proceeding.

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 either need not be reached in light of our determination or are without merit.

BARROS, J.P., VOUTSINAS, GOLIA and HOM, 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

Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County, Inc. v. Scheinman
422 N.E.2d 542 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 NY Slip Op 00512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-schieferstein-v-whelan-nyappdiv-2026.