Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County, Inc. v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 1 (1981)
Mandamus does not lie to compel a superior court to remove charges pending in a local criminal court to ensure a defendant’s trial before a lawyer-trained judge; such relief would disrupt the normal progress of a pending criminal action.
Summary
The Legal Aid Society sought a writ of mandamus to compel a county judge to remove misdemeanor charges against their client from a town justice court, where none of the justices were lawyers, to a court with a lawyer-trained judge. The motion was based on the argument that the client had a right to be tried before a judge who was a lawyer. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is inappropriate for interlocutory relief that disrupts the normal progress of a pending criminal action. The Court emphasized that the defendant could raise the constitutional issue on direct appeal if convicted.
Facts
John Housman was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest in the Town of Mamakating Justice Court in Sullivan County.
None of the Justices of the local criminal court in the Town of Mamakating were admitted to practice law.
Housman’s counsel, the Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County, moved to have the charges prosecuted by indictment and presented to the Grand Jury, arguing for removal to a court with a lawyer-trained judge based on a constitutional right.
The County Judge denied the motion.
Procedural History
After the County Judge denied the motion for removal, the Legal Aid Society initiated an Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the County Judge to grant the requested relief.
The Appellate Division dismissed the petition.
The Legal Aid Society appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether mandamus lies to compel the removal by a superior court of charges pending in a local criminal court to ensure a defendant’s trial before a lawyer-trained Judge.
Holding
No, because mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is inappropriate for interlocutory relief that disrupts the normal progress of a pending criminal action; the defendant can raise the constitutional issue on direct appeal if convicted.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that mandamus is only available to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought, which was not the case here. The Court emphasized that mandamus, like prohibition, is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used for interlocutory relief that disrupts the normal progress of a pending criminal action. Allowing such collateral proceedings would lead to numerous disruptions and make speedy trials impossible. The court cited Matter of State of New York v. King, 36 N.Y.2d 59 (1975), which held that courts should not entertain collateral proceedings to review errors of law in pending criminal actions. The Court noted that Housman could obtain full judicial review of his claim on direct appeal from any judgment of conviction, making the collateral action unnecessary and inappropriate. As the court stated in Matter of State of New York v. King, “No trial can be conducted while appellate courts by their own protracted proceedings review the alleged errors which may arise preliminary to the trial, during the trial, and before verdict and judgment. Such a system is neither civilized nor even rational. And most certainly it would make speedy trial a legal impossibility.”