Matter of Szileszky v. Ciccotto
This text of Matter of Szileszky v. Ciccotto (Matter of Szileszky v. Ciccotto) 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
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Szileszky v Ciccotto
2026 NY Slip Op 04201
July 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Levente Szileszky, petitioner,
v
Theresa M. Ciccotto, etc., et al., respondents.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 1, 2026
2026-03643
Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.
Janice A. Taylor
Lourdes M. Ventura
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Michael A. Berg of counsel), for respondent Theresa M. Ciccotto.
Levente Szileszky, Brooklyn, NY, petitioner pro se.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, certiorari, and mandamus, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Theresa M. Ciccotto, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, from presiding at the trial in a matrimonial action entitled Abella v Szileszky, pending in that court under Index No. 52705/17, to compel her to reassign the action to another Justice, to annul certain orders issued by that court, and application by the petitioner for a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses.
Upon the papers filed in support of the proceeding and application, 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; and it is further,
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
"Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers" (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). Similarly, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when 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., TAYLOR, VENTURA and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matter of Szileszky v. Ciccotto, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-szileszky-v-ciccotto-nyappdiv-2026.