From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. Ambro

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2017
148 A.D.3d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

03-08-2017

In the Matter of William MITCHELL, petitioner, v. Richard M. AMBRO, etc., et al., respondents.

William Mitchell, Patchogue, NY, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Michael J. Siudzinski of counsel), for respondent Richard M. Ambro. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Guy Arcidiacono pro se of counsel), respondent pro se.


William Mitchell, Patchogue, NY, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Michael J. Siudzinski of counsel), for respondent Richard M. Ambro.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, in effect, to compel the respondent Richard M. Ambro, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, inter alia, to grant the petitioner's motion to vacate a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered August 23, 2001, and to dismiss the indictment in the underlying criminal action, 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 relief 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.

AUSTIN, J.P., MILLER, LaSALLE and COHEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mitchell v. Ambro

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2017
148 A.D.3d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Mitchell v. Ambro

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of William MITCHELL, petitioner, v. Richard M. AMBRO, etc.…

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

Date published: Mar 8, 2017

Citations

148 A.D.3d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
47 N.Y.S.3d 912