- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Matter of Jour v. Kitsis
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03441
Background
Petitioner Christopher Saint Jour, proceeding pro se from Brooklyn, commenced this CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking mandamus to compel respondent Michael D. Kitsis, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to decide a certain motion in a pending criminal action, People v. Saint-Jour, under Indictment No. 74917/23. The Attorney General appeared on behalf of the judicial respondent.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The Court held that 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,” citing Matter of Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought, and thus the petition was denied.
The Court’s determination reflects the fundamental principle that mandamus cannot be used to compel a judge to exercise judicial discretion in a particular manner or on a particular timetable. A judge’s decision regarding when and how to resolve pending motions involves judicial discretion, not ministerial duty, and therefore falls outside the scope of mandamus relief.
Takeaways
Criminal defendants who believe their motions are not being resolved promptly cannot use mandamus proceedings to compel action by the assigned judge. Mandamus applies only to ministerial acts—duties that are mandatory and involve no exercise of discretion. The resolution of motions in criminal cases is an inherently judicial function involving discretion as to timing, priority, and the need for additional submissions or argument. Litigants seeking to expedite consideration of pending motions should explore administrative remedies, such as contacting the court’s administrative judge or filing applications within the existing action.
Why It Matters
This brief but important decision reinforces the limits of mandamus relief in the judicial context. Criminal defense practitioners and pro se defendants frequently face delays in motion resolution, but Article 78 mandamus is not the remedy. The decision serves as a reminder that the judiciary manages its own docket and that mandamus cannot be used as a scheduling tool. Defendants experiencing unreasonable delays should explore administrative channels within the court system rather than commencing separate proceedings in the Appellate Division.