Lancaster v Chun - Mandamus Proceeding Dismissed

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 4th, 2026

Detected March 5th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed a proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel an acting justice to sign a proposed order to show cause. The court found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in the matter of Lancaster v. Chun, decided on March 4, 2026, dismissed a proceeding in the nature of mandamus. The petitioner sought to compel an acting justice to sign a proposed order to show cause related to a criminal action under Indictment No. 787/15. The court denied the petition on the merits, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, which lies only to compel a ministerial act.

This decision means the petitioner's attempt to compel the signing of the order to show cause has been unsuccessful. The proceeding is dismissed, and the petitioner's motion for a waiver of costs was granted only for the filing fee, otherwise denied as academic. No further action is required from regulated entities based on this specific court opinion, as it pertains to a procedural matter within the court system itself.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

Matter of Lancaster v. Chun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01201
Docket Number: 2025-14955
Opinion
Authorities (1)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Matter of Lancaster v Chun (2026 NY Slip Op 01201)
| Matter of Lancaster v Chun |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01201 |
| Decided on March 4, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided on March 4, 2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
LILLIAN WAN
JAMES P. MCCORMACK
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.
2025-14955 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT

*[1]In the Matter of Herman Lancaster, petitioner,

Danny Chun, etc., respondent. Herman Lancaster, Ossining, NY, petitioner pro se.**

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, Danny Chun, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to sign a proposed order to show cause in an action entitled People v Lancaster, commenced in that court under Indictment No. 787/15. Motion by the petitioner for a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion for a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022(b) is waived, and the motion is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

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). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

BARROS, J.P., WAN, MCCORMACK and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court