Further, only ministerial acts that involve no exercise of judgment or discretion are subject to a mandamus to compel. a legal right to have the duty performed. To succeed in such a proceeding, the petitioner must show a вЂњclear legal rightвЂќ to the requested relief i.e. At common law, this was called a mandamus, and more specifically, a mandamus to compel. Second, an individual can petition the court to command a state body or officer to perform a specified ministerial act that it is required by law to perform. To fall within the scope of certiorari, the review must be of a вЂњjudicial or quasi-judicialвЂќ determination вЂ“ the hallmark being a trial-type hearing to enable fact finding вЂ“ with the trial-type hearing having been required by law. Pursuant to a writ of certiorari the court reviews an agency decision or determination to establish whether it was supported by substantial evidence. At common law, this was called certiorari. If a remedy is available, a proceeding will commence.ДЇirst, an individual can petition the court to review a decision made by a state body or officer, because the decision was based upon insufficient evidence. Therefore, a petitioner needs only to present his or her facts and prayer for relief. For reasons of fairness, the current law has shed these distinctions procedurally вЂ“ however, the substantive law on which they are based has not changed. whether a determination made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence.ДЄt common law, there were three causes of action: mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition.whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed or.whether the body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction or.whether the body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law or.

According to section 7803 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, the only questions that may be raised in a proceeding under this article are: The Four Questions that can be Raised in an Article 78 ProceedingДЄn article 78 proceeding describes when an individual (the petitioner) asks a state court to review a decision or action of a New York State body or officer. Please see below for a detailed discussion on article 78 proceedings, as well as examples of the types of cases that fall under article 78. Most importantly, an article 78 proceeding must be brought 4 months, or 120 days after a final agency determination. In order to properly bring an article 78 proceeding, a petitioner must have first exhausted their administrative remedies (discussed in detail below). There are four instances where an article 78 proceeding is proper: to review of a decision of a state body or officer that was based on insufficient evidence to review of a decision of a state body or officer that was obviously incorrect or unreasonable, or based on an error of law to compel a state body or officer to act and, to prohibit a state body or officer from acting beyond its authority.

Nys pistol permit amendment