The New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has denied a petition that sought to compel a judge to act on a motion in a mortgage-related case. The ruling, made on August 5, 2026, affects the petitioner, Yvette Rhea-Burg, and could have implications for similar cases in the future.

The case originated from a dispute involving Mortgage Assets Management, LLC, which filed an action against an individual named Moore in Suffolk County. Rhea-Burg, the petitioner, sought to compel Justice Betsy Heckman Torres to determine a motion in that ongoing case. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the limitations of the extraordinary remedy known as mandamus.

In this case, Rhea-Burg argued that the judge had a duty to act on the motion, but the court found that she did not demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief she sought. This ruling emphasizes that mandamus can only be used to compel a judge to perform a specific, ministerial act, and not to intervene in the judicial process without sufficient grounds.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Yvette Rhea-Burg, the petitioner, and Betsy Heckman Torres, the respondent, who serves as a Justice of the Supreme Court in Suffolk County. The dispute arose from a case entitled Mortgage Assets Management, LLC v. Moore, which is still pending in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County.

The petitioner sought a legal remedy under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), which allows individuals to challenge the actions of government officials and compel them to perform their duties. Rhea-Burg's request was specifically aimed at compelling Justice Torres to make a determination on a motion related to the mortgage case.

The case reached the Appellate Division after Rhea-Burg's initial petition was filed in the lower court. The lower court's ruling was not detailed in the opinion, but it was clear that Rhea-Burg was dissatisfied with the pace of the judicial process regarding her motion.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division, consisting of Justices Lara J. Genovesi, Paul Wooten, Barry E. Warhit, and Donna-Marie E. Golia, ruled against Rhea-Burg. The court stated, "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."

The court concluded that Rhea-Burg failed to demonstrate such a clear legal right. As a result, the petition was denied, and the proceeding was dismissed on the merits without costs or disbursements. The ruling highlighted that the remaining arguments presented by Rhea-Burg were without merit, further solidifying the court's decision.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for future cases involving similar petitions to compel judges to act. It reinforces the principle that mandamus is not a tool for litigants to expedite judicial processes without a valid legal basis. The decision emphasizes the need for petitioners to clearly establish their legal rights when seeking such extraordinary remedies.

Moreover, the court's ruling may deter future attempts to compel judicial action in cases where the petitioner cannot demonstrate a clear legal entitlement. This could lead to a more efficient judicial process, as courts will not be burdened with petitions lacking sufficient legal grounds.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Rhea-Burg plans to appeal the decision. There is no indication of any related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling.