colour contrasts

ny pml sec 109. is unconstitutional , see ny const art 1 sec 3, history of nyc otb, or note that pope francis differs from bartholomew


letitia james dies not like people to bet at nassau otb whenever there is great racing to be bet any more than andrew cuomo likes the eandering dago food truck or the second circuit decision that says he is a clear loser and the taxpayors pay for his slanty eyed artogsnce snd scholarly reading of the decidion of the us supreme court


open the holy church of nassau otb so that people may work and or bet

i guess letitia james works for pope smaxon francis cuomo and she has never heard of the orthodox church  ny const art 1 sec 3


those without standing to ask for the  formal opinion of the black woman in black and white  have no recourse. lawyers are expensive and comparative religion is fairly simple

Matter of D'Amato v Lorintz

Annotate this Case

Matter of D'Amato v Lorintz 2019 NY Slip Op 00592 Decided on January 30, 2019 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 January 30, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
2018-14072

[*1]In the Matter of Katuria D'Amato, petitioner,

v

Joseph H. Lorintz, etc., respondent. Law Offices of Thomas F. Liotti, LLC, Garden City, NY, for petitioner.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Michael A. Berg of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent, Joseph H. Lorintz, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to recuse himself from presiding over an action entitled Anonymous-1 v Anonymous-2 , pending in that court under Index No. 202477/17.

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 Legal Aid Soc'y of Sullivan County, Inc. v Scheinman , 53 NY2d 12, 16). Assuming, without deciding, that this proceeding was appropriately commenced by counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., HINDS-RADIX, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the