# Mullaney v. Brown

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · December 2, 2002 · 300 A.D.2d 307

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6090868

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of James A. Mullaney, Jr. v. Richard A. Brown
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** December 2, 2002
- **Citations:** 300 A.D.2d 307; 750 N.Y.S.2d 871
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6090868

## Opinion text

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County, to file an accusatory instrument, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated June 15, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that the decision whether to prosecute is entrusted to the sole discretion of the District Attorney (see Matter of Nieblas v Kings County Dist. Attorney, 209 AD2d 703 ; Matter of Hynes v Demarest, 202 AD2d 669 ; see also People v Di Falco, 44 NY2d 482 ). Mandamus cannot be used to compel a purely discretionary act by a public official (see Matter of Mullen v Axelrod, 74 NY2d 580 ; Matter of Milek v Town of Hempstead, 294 AD2d 440 ). Accordingly, the dismissal of the proceeding was proper. Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, O’Brien and Adams, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6090868. Public record. Not legal advice.