Matter of Rowe v Crecca, 2023 NY Slip Op 00667 [213 AD3d 770]
February 8, 2023
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
In the Matter of Roger Rowe, Petitioner,
v
Andrew A. Crecca, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, et al., Respondents.
Roger Rowe, Amityville, NY, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Steven A. Sutro of counsel), for respondent Andrew A. Crecca.
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, NY (Kenneth J. Flickinger, sued herein as Kenneth Flickinger, pro se of counsel), respondent pro se and for respondents U.S. Bank National Association and others.
Bonchonsky & Zaino, LLP, Garden City, NY (Peter R. Bonchonsky of counsel), respondent pro se and for respondents JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and another.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Andrew A. Crecca, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, in effect, to vacate two orders, dated May 4, 2021, and September 24, 2021, issued in an action entitled Rowe v U.S. Bank N.A. , pending in that court under index No. 610690/20. Motion by the respondents JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Kevin M. Butler, and Bonchonsky & Zaino, LLP, to dismiss the petition.
Upon the petition, and the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is 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 v Scheinman , 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). 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., Maltese, Dowling and Warhit, JJ., concur..