---

JURISDICTION: NEW YORK

This template applies to New York State courts (Supreme, Family, Appellate Division) governed by CPLR, DRL, FCA, and 22 NYCRR.

VERIFIED PETITION FOR ARTICLE 78 MANDAMUS RELIEF

---

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 §2219(a)" / "provide access to court records under CPLR §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 §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 §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 notice of non-compliance 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 §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 §2219(a) for Motion Nos. 3, 5, and 7 within fourteen (14) days"}};

C. Award costs and disbursements to petitioner pursuant to CPLR §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: Notice of Non-Compliance dated {{date}} Exhibit B: Second Notice of Non-Compliance dated {{date}} Exhibit C: {{Motion/Omnibus Notice/Other}} filed {{date}} Exhibit D: {{Court orders, docket sheets, correspondence, etc.}}

---

Authorities Cited:

• CPLR Article 78 (§§7801-7806)
• CPLR §7803(1) (mandamus)
• CPLR §7804(b) (jurisdiction and venue)
• CPLR §{{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 §7804(d) and relevant court rules.