From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pettus v. Wetzel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 2009
60 A.D.3d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2008-05911.

March 10, 2009.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, in effect, to compel this Court to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Justices William Wetzel of the Supreme Court, New York County, and Guy Mangano, Jr., of the Supreme Court, Kings County, or to remove them from the bench. Application by the petitioner to prosecute this proceeding as a poor person.

James Pettus, Pine City, N.Y., petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Belen, JJ.


Ordered that the application to prosecute this proceeding as a poor person is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied.

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

This Court does not have original subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding insofar as it is asserted against Justice Wetzel ( see CPLR 506 [b] [1]). The proceeding insofar as asserted against Justice Wetzel should have been commenced in the Appellate Division, First Department.

The proceeding insofar as asserted against Justice Mangano must be dismissed on the ground that the relief sought against him is not available in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 ( see CPLR 7803).


Summaries of

Pettus v. Wetzel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 2009
60 A.D.3d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Pettus v. Wetzel

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JAMES PETTUS, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM WETZEL et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 10, 2009

Citations

60 A.D.3d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 1803
873 N.Y.S.2d 918

Citing Cases

Pettus v. District Attorney

We affirm. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has a clear legal right to the appointment of a special…