Thomas v. Hanophy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Hanophy

223 A.D.2d 648, 637 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 453

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 648 (Thomas v. Hanophy) 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

Thomas v. Hanophy, 223 A.D.2d 648, 637 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent, Robert J. Hanophy, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine the petitioner’s motion to vacate a judgment of conviction under Queens County Indictment No. 6160/94, in the criminal action captioned The People of the State of New York v Steven Thomas.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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 [649]*649of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent, Robert J. Hanophy, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine the petitioner’s motion to vacate a judgment of conviction under Queens County Indictment No. 6160/94, in the criminal action captioned The People of the State of New York v Steven Thomas.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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 [649]*649of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 648, 637 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-hanophy-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack