Matter of Alatriste v New York City Department of Probation
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal justice and post-conviction relief, specifically whether a petitioner could use a proceeding under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) article 78 [special proceeding used to challenge actions of a body or officer] to compel issuance of a certificate of relief from disabilities under Correction Law § 702 [statute governing certificates that may relieve certain consequences of a criminal conviction].
The Supreme Court, Richmond County, granted dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action] and CPLR 7804(f) [rule permitting objections in point of law in an article 78 proceeding], effectively denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.
The Appellate Division vacated the Supreme Court's order and judgment because that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear an article 78 proceeding naming a Supreme Court Justice as a respondent.
Under CPLR 7804(b) [venue and commencement rule for article 78 proceedings] and CPLR 506(b)(1) [rule directing that certain article 78 proceedings against a justice be commenced in the Appellate Division], such a proceeding had to be started in the Appellate Division. Treating the appeal as an original application, the court still denied relief because mandamus is available only to compel a ministerial act where the petitioner shows a clear legal right, and that showing was not made.
Background
Alexander Alatriste brought a proceeding under CPLR article 78 seeking review of, among other things, Justice Marina C. Mundy's denial of his application for a certificate of relief from disabilities under Correction Law § 702 [statute governing certificates that may relieve certain consequences of a criminal conviction]. He also sought mandamus to compel Justice Mundy to issue the certificate. The respondents included the New York City Department of Probation, the City of New York, and Justice Mundy.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Richmond County, granted Justice Mundy's motion and the City respondents' cross-motion to dismiss the petition under CPLR 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action] and CPLR 7804(f) [rule permitting objections in point of law in an article 78 proceeding], and in effect denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, vacated the lower court's order and judgment, and then treated the matter as if it had been originally brought in the Appellate Division. On the merits, it denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding because mandamus lies only to compel a ministerial act where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought, and the petitioner failed to establish such a right.
Legal Significance
The decision confirms that an article 78 proceeding naming a Supreme Court Justice as respondent must be commenced in the Appellate Division, not the Supreme Court. It also reinforces the narrow scope of mandamus relief: courts will not compel discretionary judicial action unless the petitioner can show a clear legal right to performance of a purely ministerial duty.
Even if a petitioner seeks review of a denied certificate of relief from disabilities, mandamus cannot be used to force a judge to grant that relief absent a clear legal entitlement, and any article 78 proceeding against a Supreme Court Justice must be filed in the Appellate Division.