Matter of Stokes v Johnson
2026 NY Slip Op 01368 [247 AD3d 917]
March 11, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 6, 2026
In the Matter of Isaiah Stokes, Petitioner,
v
Michelle A. Johnson, Administrative Judge, et al., Respondents.
March 11, 2026
HEADNOTES
Proceeding against Body or Officer — Mandamus
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Isaiah Stokes, Queens, NY, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Bronwyn M. James of counsel), for respondents Michelle A. Johnson, Edwin I. Novillo, and Kenneth Holder.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Christopher Blira-Koessler, and Erin P. Vanbuskirk of counsel), respondent pro se and for respondent Timothy Regan.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Michelle A. Johnson, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, to direct the respondent Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Queens County, to respond to a purported motion by the petitioner pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under indictment No. 633/21.
Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
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. Barros, J.P., Genovesi, Ford and Golia, JJ., concur.