Title: Matter of Kostyshyn

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
§ 
OF PETER KOSTYSHYN FOR A 
 
§  No. 468, 2011 
WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  October 7, 2011 
Decided:  November 10, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th day of November 2011, upon consideration of the petition of 
Peter Kostyshyn for an extraordinary writ of mandamus and the State’s response 
thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Peter Kostyshyn, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of 
mandamus to the Court of Chancery directing that court to reopen an estate 
matter, which was the subject of significant prior litigation and was closed in 
2003.  The final accounting in the matter was approved by the Court of 
Chancery in 2004.  The State of Delaware has filed a motion to dismiss 
Kostyshyn’s current petition on the ground that it fails to invoke this Court’s 
original jurisdiction.  We agree.  
(2) 
A writ of mandamus will only be issued if a complainant can 
establish that:  he has a clear right to the performance of a duty; that no other 
 
2 
adequate remedy is available; and that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or 
refused to perform its duty.1  In this case, Kostyshyn cannot show that he has a 
right to reopen a case that has been closed for nearly eight years, nor can he 
establish that the Court of Chancery has arbitrarily refused to perform a duty 
owed to him.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance 
of an extraordinary writ is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                          
 
1In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).