Capital Equity Mgmt., LLC v. Sunshine

222 A.D.3d 640

201 N.Y.S.3d 458

In the Matter of CAPITAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, respondent,

v.Nancy T. SUNSHINE, in her official capacity as Kings County Clerk and Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, appellant.

2021-09091

Index No. 522142/20

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

Argued—May 11, 2023

December 6, 2023

Eileen D. Millett, New York, NY (Mindy Jeng of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel E. Sully, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, PAUL WOOTEN, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel Nancy T. Sunshine, in her official capacity as Kings County Clerk and Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to process the petitioner's application for a default judgment in favor of the petitioner and against Rosalie Blair, also known as Rosalie Douglas, also known as Rosalie Blair–Douglas, in an action entitled Capital Equity Management, LLC v Blair, commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 3651/19, in the same manner "as the Judgment Clerk would process any other default application for a sum certain pursuant to CPLR 3215," Nancy T. Sunshine, in her official capacity as Kings County Clerk and Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Debra Silber, J.), dated November 30, 2021. The judgment granted the petition and directed Nancy T. Sunshine, in her official capacity as Kings County Clerk and Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to process the petitioner's default judgment application in the underlying action in the same manner as "any other default judgment application for a sum certain."

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On July 6, 2010, Capital Equity Management, LLC (hereinafter Capital Equity), was awarded a judgment in the sum of $11,013 against Rosalie Blair, also known as Rosalie Douglas, also known as Rosalie Blair–Douglas (hereinafter the judgment debtor), in an action entitled Capital Equity Management, LLC v Blair, commenced in the Civil Court, Kings County, under Index No. 95441/08. In October 2019, Capital Equity commenced an action against the judgment debtor in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 3651/19 (hereinafter the underlying action), for a renewal judgment pursuant to CPLR 5014. The judgment debtor failed to answer the complaint or appear in the underlying action. On September 20, 2020, Capital Equity filed an application with the Kings County Clerk for the entry of a default judgment against the judgment debtor. In response, the Kings County Clerk's Office indicated that the application for a default judgment had to be addressed to the court, rather than to the Kings County Clerk, as the underlying action was for a renewal judgment.

In November 2020, Capital Equity commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel Nancy T. Sunshine, in her official capacity as Kings County Clerk and Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County (hereinafter the Clerk), to process Capital Equity's application for a default judgment in the underlying action in the same manner "as the Judgment Clerk would process any other default application for a sum certain pursuant to CPLR 3215." In a judgment dated November 30, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the Clerk to process Capital Equity's default judgment application in the underlying action in the same manner as "any other default judgment application for a sum certain." The Clerk appeals.

"The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought" ( Matter of Lewis v. Jamieson, 214 A.D.3d 811, 811, 183 N.Y.S.3d 763 ; see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16, 439 N.Y.S.2d 882, 422 N.E.2d 542 ). The remedy of mandamus does not lie to compel an act which involves an exercise of discretion (see Matter of Mensch v. Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Warwick, 189 A.D.3d 1245, 1247, 138 N.Y.S.3d 621 ). "A discretionary act ‘involve[s] the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or...