Murphy v. Menken

• Decision Date: 11 January 2023
• Docket Number: 2020–02079,Index No. 59030/19
• Parties: In the Matter of Patrick G. MURPHY, appellant, v. David A. MENKEN, etc., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

212 A.D.3d 626
181 N.Y.S.3d 327

In the Matter of Patrick G. MURPHY, appellant,
v.
David A. MENKEN, etc., respondent.

2020–02079
Index No. 59030/19

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 27, 2022
January 11, 2023

Zev Goldstein, New City, NY, for appellant.

Keane & Beane, P.C., White Plains, NY (Eric L. Gordon and Amanda Magana of counsel), for respondent.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, PAUL WOOTEN, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

181 N.Y.S.3d 328

DECISION & ORDER

212 A.D.3d 626

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, David A. Menken, a Justice of the Town of Bedford Justice Court, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court dated March 15, 2019, which, in effect, upon renewal, adhered to a prior determination in an order of the same court dated January 15, 2019, denying the petitioner's motion for a writ of error coram nobis, and to render a new determination of that motion, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (David S. Zuckerman, J.), entered January 28, 2020. The order and judgment granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition and, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In December 2018, the appellant, Patrick G. Murphy, moved in the Town of Bedford Justice Court for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his conviction, upon a plea of guilty entered on October 26, 2007, of speeding in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180–d, and to expunge from the records of the court and the Department of Motor Vehicles his conviction and the associated six points on his driver license (see 15 NYCRR 131.3 [b][3], 136.5[a][2]). By order dated January 15, 2019, the court denied the motion. In response to a subsequent written request by the appellant, the court issued a letter dated January 25, 2019, providing the legal standard used to evaluate the appellant's submissions. Thereafter, the appellant requested that the court "reconsider or consider anew" his...