Bock v. Cooperman
| Decision Date | 22 July 1982 |
| Citation | 89 A.D.2d 539,452 N.Y.S.2d 629 |
| Parties | In re Application of Debby BOCK, Petitioner-Respondent, For a Judgment etc., v. Arthur COOPERMAN, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Debby Bock, pro se.
Henriette B. Frieder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents-appellants.
Before ROSS, J. P., and CARRO, MARKEWICH, LUPIANO and FEIN, JJ.
Order of Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 18, 1981, denying respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition and directing respondents to answer the petition within 30 days, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion granted and the petition dismissed as against all parties respondent.
The lengthy petition against members of The Workers' Compensation Board and the Attorney General for various forms of relief, including $3.5 million in damages, all relating to a 1977 claim for worker's compensation benefits, is jurisdictionally defective. In the first place, the exclusive avenue for appeals on such matters is to the Appellate Division, Third Department (Workers' Compensation Law, § 23; see Hirsch v. Workmen's Compensation Board, 1 A.D.2d 873, 149 N.Y.S.2d 632, affd. 3 N.Y.2d 747, 163 N.Y.S.2d 978, 143 N.E.2d 523). Indeed, questions relating to this worker's compensation claim have been and are being litigated in that Court, whose "exclusive jurisdiction ... interdicts recourse to a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78." (Matter of Lubrano v. N. Y. State Workers' Compensation Board, 83 A.D.2d 841, 441 N.Y.S.2d 570.) The board continues to have jurisdiction over petitioner's claim (Workers' Compensation Law, § 123).
Second, any action for money damages against state officials acting in their official capacities in exercise of governmental functions must be brought in the Court of Claims (Court of Claims Act, § 9, subd. 2; Psaty v. Duryea, 306 N.Y. 413, 118 N.E.2d 584; Belscher v. N. Y. S. Teachers' Retirement System, 45 A.D.2d 206, 357 N.Y.S.2d 241), provided that the procedures set forth in the Workers' Compensation Law are not contravened (Court of Claims Act, § 8). Special Term, in ruling that the official capacity respondents had acted in was not clearly set forth, did not dispute respondents' averment that they were in fact acting in some official capacity. (See Bock v. State of New York, [Ct. of Claims, January 14, 1982].)
Finally, there is no justification for naming the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morell v. Balasubramanian
...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 629, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 776, 464 N.Y.S.2d 751, 451 N.E.2d 498; see also, Schaffer v. Evans, 57 N.Y.2d 992, 994, 457 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Ashland Equities Co. v. Clerk of New York County
...the Court of Claims." (Id. at 429, 35 N.E.2d 25; also, Glassman v. Glassman, 309 N.Y. 436, 440, 131 N.E.2d 721; Matter of Bock v. Cooperman, 89 A.D.2d 539, 540, 452 N.Y.S.2d 629; Schaffer v. Evans, 86 A.D.2d 708, 709, 446 N.Y.S.2d 541, aff'd 57 N.Y.2d 992, 457 N.Y.S.2d 237, 443 N.E.2d The S......
-
V.G. v. Hanley
...seeking monetary damages. (See Cartagena v. City of New York , 257 F. Supp. 2d 708, 710 [S.D.N.Y. 2003] ; Bock v. Cooperman , 89 A.D.2d 539, 452 N.Y.S.2d 629, 630 [1st Dept., 1982] ; Ouziel v. State , 174 Misc. 2d 900, 905-906, 667 N.Y.S.2d 872, 876-877 [N.Y. Ct. Cl., 1997] ; Vanderbilt Mus......
- Hagmeier v. Consolidated Rail Corp.