# VERIFIED PETITION FOR ARTICLE 78 MANDAMUS RELIEF **[NY][CPLR] Mandamus to Compel Performance of Ministerial Duty** --- ## ⚠️ BEFORE USING THIS TEMPLATE ### When to Use Article 78 Mandamus **USE this template when:** - A public official has a **ministerial duty** (no discretion) under law - The duty is clear and mandatory ("shall," not "may") - You have a **clear legal right** to the official's performance - You have **exhausted all other remedies** (see below) - The duty is **purely administrative** (no judgment or policy involved) **DO NOT use this if:** - The official has discretion in how/when to act - You disagree with a discretionary decision or ruling - You haven't tried informal remedies first - An appeal or other remedy is available - The issue involves judicial discretion or policy judgment **Appropriate example:** Judge refuses to issue written order despite multiple requests; no other remedy available. **Inappropriate example:** Judge denied your motion (that's discretionary, use appeal instead). ### Exhaust These Remedies First **You MUST try these steps before filing Article 78:** 1. **Informal written request** to the official (letter/email) 2. **Procedural enclosure** (formal demand) 3. **Motion to the court** (if applicable - e.g., motion to compel, motion for order) 4. **Second demand** with reasonable deadline 5. **Consultation with attorney** about whether duty is truly ministerial **Document everything:** Save copies of all demands, responses, and attempts at resolution. ### Resource Requirements ⚠️ **Important Considerations:** - **Filing fee:** $300+ (varies by county) - **Timeline:** 6-18 months minimum from filing to decision - **Complexity:** Article 78 practice is highly technical - **Success rate:** Low unless duty is clearly ministerial with no alternative remedy - **Attorney strongly recommended:** Pro se Article 78 petitions rarely succeed - **Cost if you lose:** May be ordered to pay respondent's legal fees **Alternatives to consider:** - Appeal (if order was entered and time hasn't expired) - Motion practice (often faster and cheaper) - Consultation with attorney about other remedies - Complaint to oversight body (if appropriate) **Proceed only if:** All informal remedies exhausted, duty is clearly ministerial, and attorney has reviewed your case OR you cannot afford attorney and have no other option. --- **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK** **COUNTY OF {{COUNTY}}** --- {{Petitioner Name}}, Petitioner, -against- {{Respondent Name}}, {{Respondent Title}}, Respondent. Index No. {{To Be Assigned}} --- ## VERIFIED PETITION Petitioner {{Name}}, by {{pro se / counsel}}, respectfully alleges: ### I. NATURE OF PROCEEDING 1. This is a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to compel respondent to perform a ministerial duty required by law: {{specific duty - e.g., "issue written orders pursuant to CPLR Section 2219(a)" / "provide access to court records under CPLR Section 5017(b)"}}. 2. Despite multiple demands over {{X}} months, respondent has refused or failed to perform this statutory obligation. ### II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR Section 7804(b), which authorizes mandamus relief to compel performance of a duty enjoined by law upon a public officer. 4. Venue is proper in {{County}} County under CPLR Section 7804(b) as respondent's principal office is located in this county. ### III. PARTIES 5. Petitioner {{Name}} is {{description - party in underlying case, member of public, etc.}} and has a clear legal right to respondent's performance of the duty at issue. 6. Respondent {{Name}} is {{Title - e.g., "Justice of the Supreme Court" / "County Clerk" / "Commissioner"}}, with principal offices at {{Address}}, County of {{County}}, State of New York. 7. Respondent has a ministerial duty under {{Statute}} to {{specific duty}}. ### IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND **Underlying Proceedings** 8. {{Brief description of underlying case or matter}}. 9. The underlying matter is captioned {{Caption}}, Index No. {{Number}}, currently {{pending/concluded}} in {{Court}}. **Actions Requiring Compliance** 10. On {{date}}, {{event requiring respondent's action occurred - e.g., "the court decided Motion No. 3 orally without issuing written order"}}. 11. On {{date}}, {{additional event}}. [Continue chronologically with all relevant events] **Demands for Compliance** 15. On {{date}}, petitioner served respondent with procedural enclosure demanding compliance with {{statute}} (Exhibit A). 16. Respondent did not respond or comply within the {{X}} business days requested. 17. On {{date}}, petitioner served second demand (Exhibit B). 18. Respondent again failed to comply. 19. On {{date}}, petitioner {{filed motion / submitted omnibus notice / other remedy}} (Exhibit C). 20. Respondent {{denied motion / ignored submission / other response}}. **Current Status** 21. As of {{date}}, respondent has still not performed the required duty. 22. Petitioner has exhausted all available remedies short of Article 78. ### V. LEGAL ARGUMENT #### POINT I: MANDAMUS IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY 23. Mandamus lies to compel performance of a ministerial duty required by law. CPLR Section 7803(1); *Kolisnyk v. County of Monroe*, 34 N.Y.3d 1092 (2020). 24. To obtain mandamus, petitioner must demonstrate: (1) a clear legal right to the relief sought; (2) respondent's duty to perform is ministerial and not discretionary; and (3) no adequate alternative remedy exists. *Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman*, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 572 (1988). 25. All three elements are satisfied here. #### POINT II: RESPONDENT'S DUTY IS MINISTERIAL 26. {{Statute}} requires respondent to {{duty}}. [Quote relevant statutory language.] 27. This duty is ministerial because it is "so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt." *Matter of Holtzman*, 71 N.Y.2d at 572. 28. The statute uses mandatory language: "shall {{action}}." This leaves no discretion. 29. [Analysis showing no discretion involved - duty is purely administrative/ministerial, not requiring judgment or policy determination.] 30. Courts have uniformly held that {{type of duty}} is ministerial. *[Supporting cases]*. #### POINT III: PETITIONER HAS CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT 31. Petitioner has a clear statutory right under {{Statute}} to respondent's performance of this duty. 32. {{Statute}} creates an enforceable obligation running to {{petitioner's status - e.g., "parties in litigation" / "members of the public" / "litigants seeking appellate review"}}. 33. [Explanation of why petitioner specifically has standing and right to this relief.] #### POINT IV: NO ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY 34. Petitioner has exhausted all alternative remedies, including: - Procedural enclosures served {{dates}} (Exhibits A-B) - {{Motion / Omnibus notice / other remedy}} filed {{date}} (Exhibit C) - {{Additional efforts}} 35. [Explain why appeal, motion, or other remedies are inadequate or unavailable - e.g., "No appealable order exists because respondent refuses to issue written order" / "Motion procedures have been exhausted without success"] 36. Absent mandamus relief, petitioner has no remedy for respondent's continued non-compliance. #### POINT V: IRREPARABLE HARM 37. Respondent's failure to perform causes petitioner irreparable harm: - {{Harm 1 - e.g., "Prevents meaningful appellate review of adverse ruling"}} - {{Harm 2 - e.g., "Violates due process rights to written findings"}} - {{Harm 3 - e.g., "Indefinitely delays resolution of underlying matter"}} 38. These harms cannot be remedied by money damages and are ongoing. ### VI. PRIOR DEMANDS AND EXHAUSTION 39. Petitioner has made the following good-faith efforts to obtain compliance: | Date | Action | Result | |------|--------|--------| | {{Date}} | Procedural enclosure served | No response | | {{Date}} | Second enclosure | Ignored | | {{Date}} | {{Motion/other}} | Denied without explanation | 40. Petitioner has exhausted all reasonable alternatives. Mandamus is the only remaining remedy. ### VII. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court: A. Issue an order to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue, returnable on the earliest available date; B. After hearing, issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent to {{specific action - e.g., "issue written orders pursuant to CPLR Section 2219(a) for Motion Nos. 3, 5, and 7 within fourteen (14) days"}}; C. Award costs and disbursements to petitioner pursuant to CPLR Section 8101; D. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: {{Date}} Respectfully submitted, _________________________ {{Your Signature}} {{Your Name}} {{Pro Se / Attorney for Petitioner}} {{Address}} {{Phone}} {{Email}} --- ## VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF {{COUNTY}} ) {{Petitioner Name}}, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the petitioner in the above-captioned proceeding. 2. I have read the foregoing Verified Petition and know the contents thereof. 3. The contents are true to my knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. 4. The source of my information and grounds of my belief as to matters not within my personal knowledge are {{source - e.g., "court records, correspondence with respondent, docket entries"}}. _________________________ {{Signature}} {{Name}} Sworn to before me this {{day}} day of {{month}}, {{year}} _________________________ Notary Public --- ## MEMORANDUM OF LAW [See above legal argument - Points I-V - or expand as separate document] --- ## EXHIBITS **Exhibit A:** Procedural Enclosure dated {{date}} **Exhibit B:** Second Procedural Enclosure dated {{date}} **Exhibit C:** {{Motion/Omnibus Notice/Other}} filed {{date}} **Exhibit D:** {{Court orders, docket sheets, correspondence, etc.}} --- **Authorities Cited:** - CPLR Article 78 (Section 7801-7806) - CPLR Section 7803(1) (mandamus) - CPLR Section 7804(b) (jurisdiction and venue) - CPLR Section {{specific duty statute}} - *Kolisnyk v. County of Monroe*, 34 N.Y.3d 1092 (2020) - *Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman*, 71 N.Y.2d 564 (1988) - {{Additional authorities as applicable}} --- **Service:** This Verified Petition and supporting papers shall be served on respondent pursuant to CPLR Section 7804(d) and relevant court rules.