Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026

Matter of Jelen v. Munoz

Matter of Jelen v. Munoz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 3, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 03442
Matter of Jelen v. Munoz

Opinion

Matter of Jelen v Munoz - 2026 NY Slip Op 03442
skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau
Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Matter of Jelen v Munoz

2026 NY Slip Op 03442

June 3, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Sean Jelen, petitioner,

v

Sandra M. Munoz, etc., et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on June 3, 2026

2026-00954

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Carl J. Landicino

Laurence L. Love, JJ.

Sean Jelen, South Abington Township, Pennsylvania, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Bronwyn M. James of counsel), respondent pro se and for respondents Sandra M. Munoz and Caelah Chavis.

David L. Martin, Mineola, NY, for respondent Susan Jelen.

[*1]

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Sandra M. Munoz, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from presiding over an action entitled Jelen v Jelen, pending in that court under Index No. 710076/21.

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

"Because of its extraordinary nature, 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" (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352). 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 (see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Court Decisions

All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search

Resources

RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting & Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index

About

About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter

Quick Contact Info

17 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: (518) 453-6900

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.