The petition to compel respondent's investigation of a complaint was properly dismissed since respondent's determination whether to investigate a complaint involves an exercise of discretion and accordingly is not amenable to mandamus (Mantell v. New York State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 277 A.D.2d 96, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 706). Moreover, inasmuch as petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct, she lacks standing to sue the Commission (see, Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472; Socy. of the Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 772; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v. Walkley, 38 N.Y.2d 6, 9).
The fact that the court ultimately ruled against petitioner has no relevance to the merits of petitioner's application for his recusal (see, Ocasio v. Fashion Inst. of Technology, 86 F. Supp.2d 371, 374,affd 9 Fed Appx 66, 2001 U.S. App LEXIS 9418), and the court's denial of the recusal application constituted a proper exercise of its discretion (see, People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405).
The imposition of a filing injunction against both petitioner and the Center for Judicial Accountability was justified given petitioner's vitrolic ad hominem attacks on the participants in this case, her voluminous correspondence, motion papers and recusal motions in this litigation and her frivolous requests for criminal sanctions (see, Miller v. Lanzisera, 273 A.D.2d 866, 869, appeal dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 887).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Motion seeking leave to adjourn oral argument of this appeal and for other related relief denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.