Matter of Wyche v. Chun
This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 152 (Matter of Wyche v. Chun) 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 Wyche v Chun |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 00152 |
| Decided on January 8, 2020 |
| 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 January 8, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
BETSY BARROS
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
2019-10681 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT
v
Danny K. Chun, etc., respondent.
Hasean Wyche, East Elmhurst, 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 the nature of prohibition to prohibit the enforcement a judgment of conviction rendered August 27, 2019, in a criminal action entitled People v Wyche , commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Indictment No. 10118/16, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.
ORDERED that the application for poor person relief 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 ofHoltzman v Goldman , 71 NY2d 564, 569; see Matter of Rush v Mordue , 68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
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
2020 NY Slip Op 152, 113 N.Y.S.3d 606, 179 A.D.3d 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-wyche-v-chun-nyappdiv-2020.