Matter of Johnson v Velasquez

Annotate this Case
Matter of Johnson v Velasquez 2016 NY Slip Op 07960 Decided on November 23, 2016 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 23, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
2016-09213 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT

[*1]In the Matter of Johnathan Johnson, petitioner,

v

Carmen R. Velasquez, etc., respondent.



Johnathan Johnson, Malone, NY, petitioner pro se.

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



Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine the petitioner's motion for certain relief in an action entitled Johnson v R and G General Construction Company , pending in that court under Index No. 20061/12, 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 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 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

BALKIN, J.P., DICKERSON, HINDS-RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.