Matter of Horsley v. Gonzalez, 2017 NY Slip Op 6274 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
Matter of Horsley v. Gonzalez, 2017 NY Slip Op 6274 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Markh v. Chen (2×)
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
Rather, the critical inquiry is whether Respondent Chen received "adequate notice of which signatures on his or her designating petition are being challenged and the grounds thereof' in advance of the hearing (Lancaster v Nicolas, 153 AD3d 829, 830-31 [2d Dept 2017] [citations omitted, emphasis supplied]). 451334/2025 Page 6 of 15 6 of 15 [* 6] INDEX NO. 451333/2025 NYSCEF DOC.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Dwayne Horsley, Petitioner,
v.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney of Kings County, Et Al., Respondents
2017-00280.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 23, 2017.
2017 NY Slip Op 6274
Hall, Roman, Cohen, Barros.
Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with an underlying criminal prosecution entitled People v Horsley, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under indictment No. 4219/15, and in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents to dismiss the indictment, 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; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“Because 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 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). 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 failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Hall, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.