Buonanotte v. New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services

• Decision Date: 05 March 2009
• Docket Number: 505623.
• Parties: FRANK BUONANOTTE et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF ALCOHOLISM AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

60 A.D.3d 1142

875 N.Y.S.2d 301

2009 NY Slip Op 01573

FRANK BUONANOTTE et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF ALCOHOLISM AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES et al., Respondents.

505623.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

Decided March 5, 2009.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Siegel, J.), entered June 17, 2008, which, among other things, granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss the claim.

MALONE Jr., J.

Claimant Frank Buonanotte is the sole owner and shareholder of the various claimant corporations and limited liability companies that are involved in the provision of substance abuse treatment services at outpatient facilities located throughout Long Island. These facilities are required to be operated pursuant to certificates issued by defendant Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (hereinafter OASAS). In conjunction with their substance abuse services, claimants also make housing available to homeless individuals undergoing treatment at claimants' outpatient facilities through the provision of "sober homes." During site visits to claimants' facilities in 2005, OASAS determined that unlicensed chemical dependence services were being provided at sober homes in violation of Mental Hygiene Law § 32.05 (a) (1) and that many outpatient facilities were in violation of the terms of their operating certificates. As a result, OASAS issued a notice of intent to revoke claimants' operating certificates and, in January 2006, issued a cease and desist order revoking claimants' operating certificates, directing them to stop providing further chemical dependence services and imposing a substantial fine. Shortly thereafter, a final order of suspension was issued and claimants consented to a voluntary receivership under which OASAS was to manage claimants' facilities until court proceedings were finalized. Following a March 2006 hearing, a Hearing Officer, among other things, upheld the revocation of claimants' operating certificates.

In April 2006, claimants filed a notice of intention to file a claim and, in October 2007, commenced this action in the Court of Claims against a number of state defendants. Claimants alleged various constitutional violations as well as fraud stemming from the revocation of their operating certificates and the imposition of the receivership. Following joinder of issue, claimants moved for a change of venue and defendants cross-moved to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Claims, among other things, granted defendants' cross motion and dismissed the claim. This appeal by claimants ensued.

Initially, the threshold question in determining the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is "`[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim'" (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d...