Opinion
2023–12243
01-24-2024
In the Matter of Angelo MATTHEWS, petitioner, v. Claudia DANIELS–DEPEYSTER, etc., et al., respondents.
Carol Gray and Associates, P.C., Richmond Hill, NY, for petitioner. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Joya C. Sonnenfeldt of counsel), for respondent Claudia Daniels–DePeyster. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), respondent pro se.
Carol Gray and Associates, P.C., Richmond Hill, NY, for petitioner.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Joya C. Sonnenfeldt of counsel), for respondent Claudia Daniels–DePeyster.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), respondent pro se.
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HELEN VOUTSINAS, LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents, Claudia Daniels–DePeyster, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, and Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Kings County, from enforcing an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 2, 2023, issued in an action entitled People v. Matthews, pending in that court under Docket No. SCR–74909–22, inter alia, directing the petitioner to submit to a buccal swab for the purpose of DNA testing by a date certain.
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 authorized powers" ( Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297 ; see Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348, 352, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170 ). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Drummonds v. Harrington, 158 A.D.3d 797, 68 N.Y.S.3d 916 ).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
LASALLE, P.J., MALTESE, VOUTSINAS and LOVE, JJ., concur.