If Art 78 review not appropriate, then Action for declaratory judgment under CPLR are appropriate.

• A. Action for declaratory judgment under CPLR
• B. Appeal as of right
• C. Writ of prohibition
• D. Habeas corpus

Answer: (A)

When Article 78 review isn’t available, a declaratory judgment under the CPLR is the right path to determine rights and duties in relation to administrative action or statutory interpretation. Article 78 is designed to review a final agency decision through a special proceeding; it isn’t always suited to resolve questions of legality, scope of authority, or ongoing rights where there isn’t a final, appealable decision.

A declaratory judgment action lets a party ask the court to determine their legal rights, status, or the meaning and enforceability of a statute or regulation. This is particularly useful when there’s real uncertainty about whether an agency has the authority to act, how a law will apply to a dispute, or what rights the parties have upcoming from anticipated agency action. The court’s declaration clarifies the legal relationship and can prevent future litigation or enforcement disputes.

The other remedies don’t fit this scenario. An appeal as of right requires a final agency determination ripe for review. A writ of prohibition is used to stop a lower body from acting beyond its jurisdiction, not to resolve rights in a general administrative context. Habeas corpus addresses unlawful detention or confinement, not administrative challenges or declarations about rights and statutes.