Opinion
No. 2022-06606
02-08-2023
In the Matter of Roger Rowe, petitioner, v. Andrew A. Crecca, etc., et al., respondents.
Roger Rowe, Amityville, NY, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Steven A. Sutro of counsel), for respondent Andrew A. Crecca. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, NY (Kenneth J. Flickinger, sued herein as Kenneth Flickinger, pro se of counsel), respondent pro se and for respondents U.S. Bank National Association, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Geraldine A. Cheverko, and Kenneth Flickinger. Bonchonsky & Zaino, LLP, Garden City, NY (Peter R. Bonchonsky of counsel), respondent pro se and for respondents JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Kevin M. Butler.
Roger Rowe, Amityville, NY, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Steven A. Sutro of counsel), for respondent Andrew A. Crecca.
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, NY (Kenneth J. Flickinger, sued herein as Kenneth Flickinger, pro se of counsel), respondent pro se and for respondents U.S. Bank National Association, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Geraldine A. Cheverko, and Kenneth Flickinger.
Bonchonsky & Zaino, LLP, Garden City, NY (Peter R. Bonchonsky of counsel), respondent pro se and for respondents JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Kevin M. Butler.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P. JOSEPH J. MALTESE DEBORAH A. DOWLING BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Andrew A. Crecca, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, in effect, to vacate two orders, dated May 4, 2021, and September 24, 2021, issued in an action entitled Rowe v U.S. Bank National Association, pending in that court under Index No. 610690/20. Motion by the respondents JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Kevin M. Butler, and Bonchonsky & Zaino, LLP, to dismiss the petition.
Upon the petition, and the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements; and it is further, ORDERED that the motion is denied as academic in light of the determination of the petition.
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 N.Y.2d 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., MALTESE, DOWLING and WARHIT, JJ., concur.