Automated Ticket Systems, Ltd. v. Quinn
| Decision Date | 18 November 1982 |
| Citation | 455 N.Y.S.2d 799,90 A.D.2d 738 |
| Parties | AUTOMATED TICKET SYSTEMS, LTD., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John D. QUINN, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
S. Gottlieb, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
P.J. Dooley, Albany, for defendants-appellants.
Before SANDLER, J.P., and CARRO, ASCH and SILVERMAN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 29, 1981 granting plaintiff's motion for an examination before trial, and denying defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint, is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion to dismiss the complaint is granted on the ground that the action insofar as the Supreme Court has jurisdiction thereof has become moot; and plaintiff's motion for an examination before trial is denied. Previous appeals reported at 70 A.D.2d 726, 416 N.Y.S.2d 864, modified 49 N.Y.2d 792, 426 N.Y.S.2d 731, 403 N.E.2d 454.
The complaint asks for three kinds of relief: (a) Declaring that the license agreement between plaintiff and defendant Division of the Lottery, and its predecessors (hereinafter "Division"), has not terminated and is a valid, subsisting and binding contract. (b) Enjoining defendants from cancelling the license agreement and from failing to perform various acts during the life of the license agreement. (c) Granting plaintiff appropriate other relief including damages.
During this lawsuit's long and tortuous history the prayer for injunction has become moot. Concededly, the license agreement has expired and is no longer in existence. There is nothing from which to enjoin the defendants.
The claim for damages against state officers and departments in their official capacity is one of which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction; the claim can be prosecuted only in the Court of Claims. See Automated Ticket Systems, Ltd. v. Quinn, 70 A.D.2d 726, 416 N.Y.S.2d 864, modified 49 N.Y.2d 792, 426 N.Y.S.2d 731, 403 N.E.2d 454; Adams v. Civil Service Commission, 51 A.D.2d 668, 378 N.Y.S.2d 171. An action for such damages is in fact pending in the Court of Claims.
There remains only the prayer for declaratory judgment. At the present stage this is not a proper case for declaratory judgment. The only practical effect of the declaration is in its bearing on the claim for damages as to which the action in the Court of Claims is a full and adequate remedy. Declaratory judgment ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co.
...N.Y.S.2d 675; Elmsford Properties Corp. v. Daitch Crystal Dairies, Inc., 13 A.D.2d 1026, 217 N.Y.S.2d 434; Automated Ticket Systems, Ltd. v. Quinn, 90 A.D.2d 738, 455 N.Y.S.2d 799. The The contracts of insurance which are sued on herein are commonly known in the trade as "Bankers and Broker......
-
Morell v. Balasubramanian
...v. Glassman, 309 N.Y. 436, 440, 131 N.E.2d 721; Psaty v. Duryea, 306 N.Y. 413, 417, 419, 118 N.E.2d 584; Automated Ticket Sys. v. Quinn, 90 A.D.2d 738, 739, 455 N.Y.S.2d 799, affd. 58 N.Y.2d 949, 460 N.Y.S.2d 533, 447 N.E.2d 82; Matter of Bock v. Cooperman, 89 A.D.2d 539, 540, 452 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
People v. Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am., Inc.
...certain claims, such claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the New York Court of Claims (Automated Ticket Sys., Ltd. v. Quinn , 90 A.D.2d 738, 455 N.Y.S.2d 799 [1st Dept. 1982] [holding "[t]he claim for damages against state officers and departments in their official capacity is o......
-
Wilkins v. Perales
...State or state officials is not cognizable in the Supreme Court but must be brought in the Court of Claims (Automated Ticket Systems, Ltd. v. Quinn, 90 A.D.2d 738, 455 N.Y.S.2d 799, affd. 58 N.Y.2d 949, 460 N.Y.S.2d 533, 447 N.E.2d 82 (1983).5 Without belaboring the point this argument is f......