Petitioner lacks standing to assert that, under Judiciary Law § 44 (1), respondent is required to investigate all facially meritorious complaints of judicial misconduct. Respondent's determination whether or not a complaint on its face lacks merit involves an exercise of discretion that is not amenable to mandamus (cf., Matter of Dyno v Rose,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
MANTELL v. NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
277 A.D.2d 96 (2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 316
MICHAEL MANTELL, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided November 16, 2000.
Decided November 16, 2000.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.