You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Matter of McCray v. Chun

Citations: 2016 NY Slip Op 7652; 144 A.D.3d 917; 40 N.Y.S.3d 788Docket: 2016-05424

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 15, 2016; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Joseph McCray filed a petition under CPLR article 78 seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Danny Chun, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court in Kings County, to release the grand jury minutes from the case "People v. McCray," associated with Indictment No. 5847/15. McCray also requested poor person relief related to the filing fee. The court granted the poor person relief by waiving the filing fee but denied the remainder of the application as academic. Additionally, the court dismissed the petition on its merits, stating that mandamus can only be issued to compel a ministerial act when there is a clear legal right to the requested relief. McCray failed to establish such a right, leading to the dismissal of his petition. The decision was made by Justices Balkin, Hall, Sgroi, and Barros, with an official entry by the Clerk of the Court.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Petition on Merits

Application: The court dismissed McCray's petition on the merits due to his failure to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Reasoning: McCray failed to establish such a right, leading to the dismissal of his petition.

Mandamus to Compel Ministerial Acts

Application: The court determined that a writ of mandamus could not be issued because McCray did not establish a clear legal right to the release of grand jury minutes.

Reasoning: Mandamus can only be issued to compel a ministerial act when there is a clear legal right to the requested relief.

Poor Person Relief

Application: The court granted McCray's request for poor person relief by waiving the filing fee associated with his petition.

Reasoning: The court granted the poor person relief by waiving the filing fee but denied the remainder of the application as academic.