Decision, Order and Judgment In this Article 78 proceeding, Elias Husamudeen, both in his individual capacity and as president of petitioner Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association, Inc., ask for an order directing Mayor Bill de Blasio to bring and to prosecute disciplinary charges against all members of the Board of Corrections (the BOC). Petitioners eloquently and passionately detail their allegations that the BOC is packed with biased members who ignore the safety and welfare of Correction Officers in their efforts to accommodate the needs and desires of the inmates. They assert that the BOC refuses to segregate or otherwise penalize inmates who pose or have posed a danger to the Correction Officers. Instead, petitioners state, BOC offers incentives for good behavior which results in giving perks to those in enhanced supervision housing, which is reserved for more dangerous offenders. Husamudeen wrote a letter asking Mayor de Blasio to investigate all BOC members in light of their purported abuses and to replace those members with those more experienced in matters concerning correctional facilities and more alerted to issues critical to the officers. Petitioners characterize the Mayor’s failure to respond as a refusal to investigate, and therefore they ask this Court to direct him to bring and prosecute disciplinary charges against the board members.The Court dismisses the petition as a nonjusticiable controversy. “The doctrine of justiciability is an “untidy” concept that “embraces the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and refers, in the broad sense, to matters resolvable by the judicial branch of government as opposed to the executive or legislative branches or their extensions” (Roberts v. Health & Hospitals Corp., 87 AD3d 311, 322 [1st Dept] [quoting Jiggetts v. Grinker, 75 NY2d 411, 415 [1990], lv denied, 17 NY3d 717 [2011]). Many subjects arise within the context of a justiciability analysis, including standing, ripeness, and the status of the matter as a political question (Gjonaj v. City of New York, 2018 NY Misc LEXIS 5566, *5, 2018 NY Slip Op 51722 [U], **2 [Sup Ct Bronx County 2018]). Although over the years the law surrounding justiciability has “evolved,” the courts do not intervene in areas best left to the legislative and executive branches of government (Roberts, 87 AD3d at 323). The courts especially refrain from adjudicating political questions “which involve those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the legislative and executive branches” (id. [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]).Here, by seeking an order directing the Mayor to prosecute the members of the board of corrections, petitioners essentially are asking the Court to insert itself in a controversy between the Mayor and the Correction Officers’ union over the management and treatment of prisoners. Despite petitioners’ attempt to characterize it differently, this is a political issue. Accordingly, this Court will not intrude.Petitioners argue that they are not seeking mandamus to compel but are challenging the Mayor’s rejection of their request. This position is inconsistent with the language of their own petition, which states that is seeks an order “requiring Respondent Bill de [] Blasio, the Mayor of the City of New York, to bring and prosecute disciplinary charges against each and every member of the New York City Board of Corrections” (Notice of Petition, 1). The difference between the phrase “require the Mayor” and “compel the Mayor” is negligible in this context. Petitioners’ additional argument that they are challenging his refusal to act in response to their letter, is unpersuasive, particularly as they seek an order which requires the Mayor to respond to the letter in a specific way — that is, by prosecuting all members of the BOC. Thus, petitioners seek an order of mandamus to compel.In addition, the Court agrees with respondents that petitioners seek an order of mandamus which compels the Mayor to perform a discretionary duty (see New York City Charter, Chapter 1 [setting forth the Mayor's broad range of powers and duties]; Chapter 25, §626 [stating that the Mayor appoints three of the six positions on the board, and that the Mayor "may" remove members "for cause and after a hearing"]). Courts have no power to enforce a discretionary duty; instead, “[m]andamus to compel is a judicial command to an officer or body to perform a specified ministerial act that is required by law to be performed” (Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v. New York City Police Dept., 152 AD3d 113, 117 [1st Dept 2017], aff’d, __ NY3d__ , NY Slip Op. 07694, *1 [2018]). The Mayor is not required to investigate these individuals at this time, simply because he received a request to investigate. Even if he were, petitioners seek to dictate the outcome of such investigation — that is, they seek to compel him to prosecute all the board members — and this attempt is impermissible (see Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v. New York City Police Dept., __NY3d__, NY Slip Op. 07694, *1 [2018]). This matter is distinguishable from Klostermann v. Cuomo (61 NY2d 525 [1984]), on which petitioners rely, as in that case the primary relief sought was the enforcement of constitutional and statutory mandates, rather than discretionary duties.The Court has considered all arguments and papers and it does not change the outcome. Although petitioners clearly are deeply fraught over their perceived mistreatment, the Court has no power to consider, much less remedy, the allegations. “[N]o matter how sincerely motivated,” absent unconstitutionality or clear illegality petitioners “may [not] interpose themselves and the courts into the management and operation of public enterprises” (Rodgers v. Koch, 111 AD2d 727, 729 [1st Dept 1985], aff’d, 67 NY2d 821 [1986]). Accordingly, it isORDERED that the petition is dismissed, and the Clerk is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal.Dated: January 17, 2019
