A New York appellate court has denied a petition from Giuseppe Lubrano to transfer his ongoing case proceedings to a different court. This ruling, issued on June 17, 2026, affects Lubrano directly, as it leaves his case in the hands of the current presiding judge. The decision is significant as it clarifies the standards required for a party to compel a court to act in a specific manner.
The ruling was made by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, under docket number 2026-02132. The court's decision emphasizes the need for a clear legal right to the relief sought when petitioning for extraordinary remedies such as mandamus.
Background
Giuseppe Lubrano filed a petition against Sharon A. Bourne-Clarke, a Justice of the Supreme Court in Kings County, seeking to compel her to transfer all proceedings related to his case, titled Matter of Lubrano v. Bourne-Clarke, to the Appellate Division. Lubrano represented himself in this matter, indicating he was acting pro se.
The dispute arose from Lubrano's dissatisfaction with the handling of his case in the lower court. He believed that transferring the proceedings to the Appellate Division would be more favorable for him. The case was filed under Index No. 520176/25 in the Supreme Court of Kings County, and Lubrano sought relief under CPLR article 78, which allows individuals to challenge the actions of government officials and compel them to perform their duties.
Lubrano's application included a request for a waiver of costs, fees, and expenses associated with the filing. This request was part of his broader effort to navigate the legal system without incurring additional financial burdens.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division, consisting of Judges Cheryl E. Chambers, William G. Ford, Susan Quirk, and Lisa S. Ottley, ruled on Lubrano's petition. The court granted his request to waive the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022(b), but denied the remainder of his application as academic. This means that while they waived the fee, they found that the main request to transfer the case was no longer relevant or necessary.
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.” This statement underlines the court's reasoning that Lubrano did not demonstrate a clear legal right to have his case transferred. As a result, the court dismissed the petition on its merits, meaning they found no valid basis for Lubrano's request.
Impact
This ruling has implications not only for Lubrano but also for others seeking similar remedies in New York. It reinforces the idea that parties must show a clear legal right when petitioning for extraordinary relief. This decision serves as a reminder that simply wanting a case transferred or handled differently is not sufficient; legal grounds must be established.
Moreover, the ruling may discourage future petitions that lack a strong legal basis. Individuals who find themselves in similar situations will need to carefully consider the legal standards before filing such requests. The court's emphasis on the necessity of a clear legal right could lead to more rigorous scrutiny of petitions in the future.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Lubrano plans to appeal this decision. However, the ruling stands as a significant legal precedent for future cases involving similar petitions in New York.