Matter of Stokes v Johnson - Appellate Division Ruling

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 11th, 2026

Detected March 12th, 2026

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled on Matter of Stokes v. Johnson, denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. The court found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to compel a lower court justice to direct a district attorney to respond to a motion.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, has issued a decision in Matter of Stokes v. Johnson (2026 NY Slip Op 01368), denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. The petitioner sought to compel a Supreme Court Justice to direct the Queens County District Attorney to respond to a motion related to Indictment No. 633/21. The court found that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus was not warranted as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

This ruling dismisses the proceeding on the merits. For legal professionals and courts involved in similar mandamus actions, this decision reinforces the high standard required to compel a ministerial act, emphasizing the need for a clear legal right. No specific compliance actions or deadlines are imposed on external parties by this ruling, as it pertains to the dismissal of a specific case.

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 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

Matter of Stokes v. Johnson

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

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01368
Docket Number: 2025-08060
Opinion
Authorities (1)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Matter of Stokes v Johnson (2026 NY Slip Op 01368)
| Matter of Stokes v Johnson |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01368 |
| Decided on March 11, 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 11, 2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
LARA J. GENOVESI
WILLIAM G. FORD
DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.
2025-08060

*[1]In the Matter of Isaiah Stokes, petitioner,

Michelle A. Johnson, etc., et al., respondents. 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.

DECISION & JUDGMENT

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

BARROS, J.P., GENOVESI, FORD and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court