Among the several ancient writs which haves survived through the eons is the
Writ of Mandamus.* Mandamus is sought in an effort to compel a governmental
entity or officer to perform a ministerial duty.
In contrast, the Writ cannot be used to compel an act that involve[s] an
exercise of judgment or discretion on the part of the public officer or entity.
Citing Matter of Mensch v Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Warwick,
189 AD3d 1245, the Appellate Division explained that a discretionary act
involves the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce
different acceptable results whereas "a ministerial act envisions direct
adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result".
In this action the Appellate Division held that the Petitioners seeking a
court order in the nature of mandamus "failed to establish that there
existed a clear legal right to the relief sought." Rather, opined the
court, Petitioners "sought to compel conduct involving the application of
the discretion and judgment of the [Employer]."
Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that the remedy of mandamus
was not available to the Petitioners.
*
Other surviving ancient common law writs include the Writ of Prohibition,
issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the
adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the grounds
that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction"; the Writ of Injunction
- a judicial order preventing a public official from performing an act; the
Writ of Certiorari, compelling a lower court to send its record of a
case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the Writ of
“Quo Warranto” [by what authority].