Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Giuseppe LUBRANO, petitioner, v. Sharon Bourne CLARKE, etc., et al., respondents.
DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Sharon Bourne Clarke, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to void the sale of certain real property, to provide information regarding certain alleged communications with the respondent Raquel Vasserman, and to hold a hearing regarding any such communications, and application by the petitioner for a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses. Motion by the respondent Raquel Vasserman pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against her, inter alia, for failure to state a cause of action.
Upon the petition, and the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the application for a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses 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; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is denied as academic in light of the determination of the petition.
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, Inc. 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.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
DUFFY, J.P., WARHIT, TAYLOR and HOM, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2024-09228
Decided: March 26, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)