Matter of Under 21 v Drysdale, 2024 NY Slip Op 02976 [227 AD3d 603]
May 30, 2024
Appellate Division, First Department
[*1]
In the Matter of Under 21, Doing Business as Covenant House New York, Petitioner,
v
Althea E.M. Drysdale et al., Respondents.
Argirios J. Nickas, New York, for petitioner.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Charles Sanders of counsel), for Hon. Althea E.M. Drysdale, respondent.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Steven C. Wu of counsel), for People of the State of New York, respondent.
Petition seeking a writ of prohibition and mandamus to compel against respondents, unanimously denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed, without costs.
With respect to that aspect of the petition seeking a writ of prohibition, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that respondent Drysdale has acted or threatens to act without or in excess of jurisdiction, and that petitioner has a clear legal right to relief ( see generally Matter of Rush v Mordue , 68 NY2d 348, 352-355 [1986]; Matter of Sang Seok Na v Cohen , 223 AD3d 594 , 595 [1st Dept 2024]). To the extent the petition can be read to seek a writ of mandamus to compel, petitioner has identified no purely ministerial act that respondents failed to undertake, and that petitioner has a clear legal right ( see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman , 53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). Concur—Moulton, J.P., Scarpulla, Shulman, Higgitt, O’Neill Levy, JJ..