he has no interest in protecting against the Police Department’s
and officers’ civil liability and has an interest only in achieving
justice for the people of the county. (Verified petition &
complaint ¶¶ 38-39; see Young v United States ex rel. Vuitton et
Fils S. A., 481 US 787, 810 [1987]; People v Adams, 20 NY3d
608, 613 [2013]; Cowles v Brownell, 73 NY2d 382, 387 [1989].)
Along with exacting admissions to protect the Police Depart-
ment and officers from civil liability in exchange for an ACD in
prosecutions arising from demonstrations and protests,
petitioners allege that Police Department prosecutors selec-
tively, almost exclusively, prosecute charges arising from
demonstrations and protests among all the charges covered by
the MOU. The Police Department prosecutors prosecute few, if
any, charges arising from other circumstances, even though the
MOU authorizes those prosecutions. For persons who fre-
quently or regularly participate in demonstrations or protests,
the prospect of such selective prosecutions may form the basis
MATTER OF JEFFRYES v VANCE [58 Misc 3d 185] 189
for a declaratory judgment (CPLR 3001; National Union Fire
Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v Compaction Sys. Corp. of N.J., 136
AD3d 594, 594-595 [1st Dept 2016]; Big Four LLC v Bond St.
Lofts Condominium, 94 AD3d 401, 402-403 [1st Dept 2012];
Long Is. Light. Co. v Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co., 35 AD3d
253, 253 [1st Dept 2006]; 40-56 Tenth Ave. LLC v 450 W. 14th
St. Corp., 22 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2005]), or injunctive
relief. (Hurrell-Harring v State of New York, 15 NY3d at 21,
26-27; McCain v Koch, 70 NY2d 109, 118 [1987]; Likokas v 200
E. 36th St. Corp., 48 AD3d 245, 245 [1st Dept 2008]; see Matter
of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315 [1977]; Matter of Dondi v
Jones, 40 NY2d 8, 14 [1976].)