- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Matter of Jelen v. Munoz
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03440
Background
Petitioner Sean Jelen, proceeding pro se from South Abington Township, Pennsylvania, commenced this Article 78 proceeding seeking the extraordinary remedy of prohibition to bar Justice Sandra M. Munoz of Supreme Court, Queens County, from presiding over a pending action entitled Jelen v. Jelen. Petitioner sought to challenge the judge’s authority and jurisdiction over the underlying matter. The Attorney General appeared on behalf of the judicial respondent, and respondent Susan Jelen appeared through counsel.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The Court reiterated the foundational principle that the extraordinary remedy of prohibition “is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers,” citing Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569, and Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352.
Similarly, the Court noted that mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought, citing Matter of Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16. Petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to either form of extraordinary relief.
Takeaways
This decision reaffirms the exceptionally high bar for obtaining writs of prohibition or mandamus against sitting judges. Litigants who are dissatisfied with how a judge is handling their case cannot use Article 78 as a substitute for appellate review. Prohibition requires a showing that the court is acting without jurisdiction or in excess of authority, not merely that the court has made rulings the petitioner disagrees with. Pro se litigants in particular should be aware that these extraordinary remedies are rarely granted and should explore standard appellate avenues before seeking prohibition or mandamus relief.
Why It Matters
The dismissal of this petition follows a well-established pattern in which Article 78 proceedings seeking to disqualify or restrain judges are summarily denied absent a clear showing of jurisdictional excess. Practitioners and self-represented litigants alike should understand that the remedy of prohibition is not a mechanism for litigant forum-shopping or for challenging discretionary judicial decisions. The appropriate remedy for perceived judicial errors remains a direct appeal from the adverse determination, not an original proceeding in the Appellate Division.