From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Francois v. Dolan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 12, 1999
263 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted June 10, 1999

July 12, 1999

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus and prohibition, inter alia, to compel the respondent Thomas J. Dolan, Judge of the County Court, Dutchess County, to entertain the petitioner's plea of guilty in a criminal action entitled People v. Kendall Francois, pending under Dutchess County Superseding Indictment No. 122/98.

Capital Defenders Officer, Albany, N.Y. (Mark B. Harris and Barry J. Fisher of counsel), for petitioner.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N Y (William J. O'Neill of counsel), respondent pro se.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION JUDGMENT

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

"[P]rohibition 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 of Rondon v. Kohm, 229 A.D.2d 395, quoting Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569). 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 Aid Socy. v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.


Summaries of

Matter of Francois v. Dolan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 12, 1999
263 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Francois v. Dolan

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of KENDALL FRANCOIS, petitioner, v. THOMAS J. DOLAN, etc.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 12, 1999

Citations

263 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
693 N.Y.S.2d 198

Citing Cases

Schroedel v. LaBuda

Contrary to the assertions of petitioner, there is no constitutional right that a proffered plea of guilty be…

People v. Schroedel

e Court did not address CPL 250.40, requiring the District Attorney within 120 days from arraignment on the…