Matter of Troise v Marchiano

Holding The court affirmed the denial of a petition to annul an OATH determination, holding that mandamus is not appropriate to compel the processing of document requests in a specific manner when the agency’s redirection of requests and added requirements constitute discretionary acts rather than ministerial duties. The court found that OATH’s decision to require submissions to a dedicated email address and proof of entitlement was supported by a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious.

The court’s words

Mandamus to compel may only be used "to enforce a clear legal right where the public official has failed to perform a duty enjoined by law"

2026 NY Slip Op 06079, at the official text

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

2026 NY Slip Op 06079, at the official text

Petitioner did not establish a clear legal right to have OATH process document requests sent to the clerk's general email address, just because it had processed requests sent to that address in the past

2026 NY Slip Op 06079, at the official text

The way a government entity requires submission of an information request is discretionary, especially when it is only redirecting the request from one email account to another and requiring proof of the petitioner's entitlement to seek the information requested

2026 NY Slip Op 06079, at the official text

OATH's redirection of petitioners' document request was not arbitrary and capricious

2026 NY Slip Op 06079, at the official text

If a court "conclude[s] that the determination is supported by a rational basis, [it] must sustain the [agency's] determination even if [it] concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency"

2026 NY Slip Op 06079, at the official text