Alston v. State

• Decision Date: 08 March 2001
• Citation: 722 N.Y.S.2d 85
• Parties: (A.D. 3 Dept. 2001) BENJAMIN ALSTON et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. 88102 : THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 85

722 N.Y.S.2d 85 (A.D. 3 Dept. 2001)

BENJAMIN ALSTON et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

88102

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

March 8, 2001

William P. Seamon (Lisa M. King of counsel), Albany, for appellants.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Michael S. Buskus of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, JJ.

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), entered April 12, 2000, which granted the State's motion to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In November 1991, claimant Benjamin Alston and 102 others similarly situated brought an action against the State in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 USC § 201 et seq.) (hereinafter FLSA) seeking to recover for overtime allegedly worked during 1989 and 1990. In 1997, the District Court granted the State's motion to dismiss the claim based upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Seminole Tribe of Fla. v Florida (517 U.S. 44), which held that the 11th Amendment deprives Federal courts of nonconsensual jurisdiction over FLSA claims against a state. In 1998, claimants brought the instant action in the Court of Claims, asserting the same causes of action and seeking the identical relief as had been sought in the Federal action. The State answered the claim, denied the material allegations and asserted, inter alia, that the Court of Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of claimants' failure to file the claim within six months of its accrual. Thereafter, the State successfully moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, prompting this appeal.

Initially, we reject claimants' assertion that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Alden v Maine (527 U.S. 706) did not serve to undermine the rationale for our holding in Ahern v State of New York (244 A.D.2d 7). As we recently have held, "the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in [Alden] effectively overrules our prior decision in [Ahern]" (Bergmann v State of New York, ___ A.D.2d ___ [decided herewith]. Alden clearly holds that the Supremacy Clause does not confer authority upon Congress to abrogate a state's sovereign immunity in its own courts without its consent (Alden v Maine, supra, at 732). Consequently, when New York waived its immunity subject to a six-month Statute of Limitations for FLSA claims brought against it (see, Court of Claims Act § 10 [4]), such limitation could not be overridden by the article I powers...