From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Von Maack v. Baynes

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 28, 2018
159 A.D.3d 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

2018–00858

03-28-2018

In the Matter of Dorota VON MAACK, petitioner, v. Johnny Lee BAYNES, etc., et al., respondents.

Dorota Von Maack, Ridgewood, NY, petitioner pro se. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barbara E. Hoey and Damon W. Suden of counsel), for respondent Wyckoff Heights Medical Center.


Dorota Von Maack, Ridgewood, NY, petitioner pro se.

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barbara E. Hoey and Damon W. Suden of counsel), for respondent Wyckoff Heights Medical Center.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Johnny Lee Baynes, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, in effect, to proceed to trial in an action entitled Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 504150/13. Motion by the respondent Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against it.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been submitted in opposition or in relation thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion of the respondent Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against it is granted, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied on the merits insofar as asserted against the respondent Johnny Lee Baynes, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ADJUDGED that the proceeding is dismissed, 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 Socy. 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.

BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Von Maack v. Baynes

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 28, 2018
159 A.D.3d 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Von Maack v. Baynes

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Dorota VON MAACK, petitioner, v. Johnny Lee BAYNES, etc.…

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

Date published: Mar 28, 2018

Citations

159 A.D.3d 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
70 N.Y.S.3d 396

Citing Cases

Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr.

Defendant moved to dismiss the petition. By order decided March 28, 2018, the petition was denied on the…