Matter of Stokes v. Johnson
This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 01368 (Matter of Stokes v. Johnson) 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 Stokes v Johnson |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01368 |
| Decided on March 11, 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 March 11, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
LARA J. GENOVESI
WILLIAM G. FORD
DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.
2025-08060
v
Michelle A. Johnson, etc., et al., respondents. Isaiah Stokes, Queens, NY, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Bronwyn M. James of counsel), for respondents Michelle A. Johnson, Edwin I. Novillo, and Kenneth Holder.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Christopher Blira-Koessler, and Erin P. Vanbuskirk of counsel), respondent pro se and for respondent Timothy Regan.
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Michelle A. Johnson, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to direct the respondent Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Queens County, to respond to a purported motion by the petitioner pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. 633/21.
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.
BARROS, J.P., GENOVESI, FORD and GOLIA, 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
2026 NY Slip Op 01368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-stokes-v-johnson-nyappdiv-2026.