Opinion
June 16, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner alleges that the respondent has refused or neglected to suspend or revoke the used-vehicle-dealer registration issued to Richard B. Hetey. The petitioner further alleges that it is the respondent's duty to take such action, in light of Mr. Hetey's alleged misuse of dealer number plates (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 415, [9] [b]; 15 NYCRR 78.21 [b]). Based on the foregoing allegations, the petitioner sought an order in the nature of a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to either suspend Mr. Hetey's license or commence revocation hearings. On motion by the respondent (CPLR 7804 [f]), Special Term dismissed the proceeding. We affirm. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act, but is not an appropriate remedy to compel an act with respect to which a public officer may exercise judgment or discretion (see, Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525, 539; Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16; Matter of Gimprich v. Board of Educ., 306 N.Y. 401, 406). The respondent has no mandatory duty to revoke or suspend Mr. Hetey's registration.
Moreover, a peremptory writ of mandamus will issue only in the absence of an adequate remedy at law (Matter of Walsh v LaGuardia, 269 N.Y. 437; Matter of Fried v. Fox, 49 A.D.2d 877; Matter of Greensmith v. Incorporated Vil. of Centre Is., 109 A.D.2d 742, 743). It is clear that the petitioner, the Zoning Administrator of the City of Poughkeepsie, has various other remedies available to assist him in enforcing the city's zoning laws. Under these circumstances, the court properly granted the motion to dismiss this proceeding (CPLR 7804 [f]). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.