The Village and the Village Board appeal. "[T]he amendment of a zoning ordinance is a purely legislative function" ( Matter of Wolff v. Town/Village of Harrison , 30 A.D.3d 432, 433, 816 N.Y.S.2d 186 ; seeMatter of Neddo v. Schrade , 270 N.Y. 97, 103, 200 N.E. 657 ; see alsoMatter of Southern Dutchess Country Club v. Town Bd. of Town of Fishkill , 25 A.D.2d 866, 270 N.Y.S.2d 165 ). The Village Board is vested with discretion to amend its zoning ordinance, and it is not required to consider and vote upon every application for a zoning change (see Village Law § 7–708 ; Code of the Village of Mamaroneck § 342–95; Matter of Structural Tech., Inc. v. Foley , 56 A.D.3d 677, 678, 868 N.Y.S.2d 228 ; Matter of Wolff v. Town/Village of Harrison , 30 A.D.3d at 433, 816 N.Y.S.2d 186 ; cf.Matter of Society of N.Y. Hosp. v. Del Vecchio , 70 N.Y.2d 634, 636, 518 N.Y.S.2d 781, 512 N.E.2d 302 ). Thus, in the present case, the Village Board's determinations not to consider the plaintiffs/petitioners' applications were a legislative function not subject to review under CPLR article 78 (see CPLR 7803[3] ; Matter of Structural Tech., Inc. v. Foley , 56 A.D.3d at 678, 868 N.Y.S.2d 228 ; Matter of Wolff v. Town/Village of Harrison , 30 A.D.3d at 433, 816 N.Y.S.2d 186 ; Norman v. Town Bd. of Orangetown , 118 A.D.2d 839, 500 N.Y.S.2d 324 ).

Thus, mandamus may be employed “to compel acts that officials are duty-bound to perform” ( Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d at 540, 475 N.Y.S.2d 247, 463 N.E.2d 588). However, mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of a purely legislative function ( see Matter of Structural Tech., Inc. v. Foley, 56 A.D.3d 677, 678, 868 N.Y.S.2d 228;Matter of Wolff v. Town/Village of Harrison, 30 A.D.3d 432, 432–433, 816 N.Y.S.2d 186). “[T]he courts must be careful to avoid ... the fashioning of orders or judgments that go beyond any mandatory directives of existing statutes and regulations and intrude upon the policy-making and discretionary decisions that are reserved to the legislative and executive branches” ( Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d at 541, 475 N.Y.S.2d 247, 463 N.E.2d 588). Here, the petitioners did not merely seek to compel the Village to make a determination on their applications for taxicab licenses.

Also, the Village was not required to consider Plaintiffs' Petition. See e.g., Structural Tech., Inc. v. Foley, 868 N.Y.S.2d 228, 229 (App. Div. 2008) (explaining that the town need not consider and vote on every application for a zoning change); Wolff v. Town/Village of Harrison, 816 N.Y.S.2d 186, 187 (App. Div. 2006) (noting that the town board is not “duty-bound” to act upon a petitioner's application because amendment of a zoning ordinance is a purely legislative function) (collecting cases).

Despite the petitioners' assertion to the contrary, the plain language of the Zoning Law does not impose a duty on the Town Board, upon request from a property owner, to correct any alleged error that was made in designating the zoning district for a parcel of property (see Town Code § 125-131). Any amendments to the Zoning Law to change the zoning district for the subject property would require a legislative act, which cannot be compelled by mandamus in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Hampshire Recreation, LLC v Village of Mamaroneck, 181 A.D.3d 904, 905; Matter of Gonzalez v Village of Port Chester, 109 A.D.3d 614, 616; Matter of Wolff v Town/Village of Harrison, 30 A.D.3d 432, 433; see also East Suffolk Dev. Corp. v Town Bd. of Town of Riverhead, 59 A.D.3d 661, 662; Matter of Structural Tech., Inc. v Foley, 56 A.D.3d 677, 678). In addition, contrary to the petitioners' contention, the true nature of the relief sought in the second and third causes of action in the petition was relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see Matter of Hampshire Recreation, LLC v Village of Mamaroneck, 181 A.D.3d at 905). Since that relief is not available here, the court also properly granted dismissal of those causes of action.

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of the respondents/defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, to compel the Town Board to process the petitioner/plaintiff's rezoning application diligently, in good faith, and without delay. The Town Board is not required to consider and vote on every application for a zoning change (seeMatter of Structural Tech., Inc. v. Foley, 56 A.D.3d 677, 868 N.Y.S.2d 228 ; Matter of Wolff v. Town/Village of Harrison, 30 A.D.3d 432, 816 N.Y.S.2d 186 ). In any event, the respondents/defendants submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that the Town Board was processing the petitioner/plaintiff's rezoning application diligently, in good faith, and without delay.