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: Joachim Chiantella, petitioner, v. John J.J. Jones, Jr., etc., et al., respondents.
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent John J.J. Jones, Jr., a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate an order dated July 30, 2009, in a proceeding entitled Matter of Chiantella v. Vishnick, pending in that court under Index No. 08-11232, and to recuse himself from that proceeding, and in the nature of prohibition, among other things, to prohibit the respondent Robert L. Nahman, the Queens County Surrogate, from assuming jurisdiction of the proceeding.
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought (see Matter of Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16). In addition, “[b]ecause of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court-in cases where judicial authority is challenged-acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” (Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 569; see Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d 348). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.
SKELOS, J.P., ENG, BELEN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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: 2009-10139
Decided: February 02, 2010
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)