Taylor v. Aloise

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Aloise

85 A.D.3d 1190, 926 N.Y.S.2d 312

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

DecidedJune 28, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.3d 1190 (Taylor v. Aloise) 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

Taylor v. Aloise, 85 A.D.3d 1190, 926 N.Y.S.2d 312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel Michael Aloise, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to vacate an order of the same court dated August 11, 2010, and application by the petitioner to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CFLR 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, without costs or disbursements.

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 [1191]*1191Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Dillon, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel Michael Aloise, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to vacate an order of the same court dated August 11, 2010, and application by the petitioner to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CFLR 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, without costs or disbursements.

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 [1191]*1191Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Dillon, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 1190, 926 N.Y.S.2d 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-aloise-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack