v State of New York, 15 NY3d at 27; Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d at
14), petitioners may be entitled to a judgment declaring their
rights, respondents’ obligations, and respondents’ liability for
violating petitioners’ rights (CPLR 3001; Morgenthau v Erl-
baum, 59 NY2d at 151; National Union Fire Ins. Co. of
Pittsburgh, PA v Compaction Sys. Corp. of N.J., 136 AD3d at
594-595; Big Four LLC v Bond St. Lofts Condominium, 94
AD3d at 402-403; 40-56 Tenth Ave. LLC v 450 W. 14th St. Corp.,
22 AD3d at 417), and to damages based on that liability. (CPLR
7806; Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d at 236; Hughes Vil. Rest., Inc. v
Village of Castleton-on-Hudson, 46 AD3d at 1047.) If petition-
ers are subject to further prosecution delegated by respondent
District Attorney to respondent Police Department, petitioners
may be entitled to injunctive relief (Weinreb v 37 Apts. Corp.,
MATTER OF JEFFRYES v VANCE [58 Misc 3d 185] 191
97 AD3d 54, 56 [1st Dept 2012]; Lemle v Lemle, 92 AD3d 494,
500 [1st Dept 2012]; Mini Mint Inc. v Citigroup, Inc., 83 AD3d
596, 597 [1st Dept 2011]), to assure prospectively what
constitutional due process and the County Law guarantee.
(Hurrell-Harring v State of New York, 15 NY3d at 21; Mor-
genthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d at 152; Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d
at 315-316; see Matter of Veloz v Rothwax, 65 NY2d 902, 904
[1985]; Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d at 14; Goldstone v Gracie Ter-
race Apt. Corp., 110 AD3d 101, 105-106 [1st Dept 2013].) These
issues will not be determined further in the pending criminal
actions if there are no convictions. (Hurrell-Harring v State of
New York, 15 NY3d at 16; Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v
Gould, 14 NY3d at 633 n 8; see Veloz v Rothwax, 65 NY2d at
904; Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d at 152.) In those circum-