Walker v. Schneiderman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walker v. Schneiderman

102 A.D.3d 803, 957 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.3d 803 (Walker v. Schneiderman) 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

Walker v. Schneiderman, 102 A.D.3d 803, 957 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the prosecution of the petitioner in a criminal action entitled People v Walker, commenced against the petitioner in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under indictment No. 425/12, and, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to release the petitioner from confinement and to vacate indictment No. 425/12, 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 [804]*804authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). 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 [1981]).

The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Miller, 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 prohibition to prohibit the prosecution of the petitioner in a criminal action entitled People v Walker, commenced against the petitioner in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under indictment No. 425/12, and, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to release the petitioner from confinement and to vacate indictment No. 425/12, 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 [804]*804authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). 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 [1981]).

The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.3d 803, 957 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-schneiderman-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack