From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McClinton v. Condon

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 25, 2017
146 A.D.3d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

01-25-2017

In the Matter of Charles McCLINTON, petitioner, v. William J. CONDON, etc., et al., respondents.

Charles McClinton, Fishkill, NY, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondents William J. Condon and Mark D. Cohen. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), respondent pro se.


Charles McClinton, Fishkill, NY, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondents William J. Condon and Mark D. Cohen.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), respondent pro se.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent William J. Condon, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to determine the petitioner's motion pursuant to CPL 330, made in a criminal action entitled People v. McClinton, commenced under Suffolk County Indictment No. 1554/15, 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 as academic; and it is further,

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

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 Soc. of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16, 439 N.Y.S.2d 882, 422 N.E.2d 542 ). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

LEVENTHAL, J.P., AUSTIN, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McClinton v. Condon

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 25, 2017
146 A.D.3d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

McClinton v. Condon

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Charles McCLINTON, petitioner, v. William J. CONDON…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 25, 2017

Citations

146 A.D.3d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
44 N.Y.S.3d 912
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 475