Green v. State

• Decision Date: 23 December 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09477,935 N.Y.S.2d 779,90 A.D.3d 1577
• Parties: Shawn GREEN, Claimant–Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Defendant–Respondent.Shawn Green, Claimant–Appellant Pro Se.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09477

90 A.D.3d 1577

935 N.Y.S.2d 779

Shawn GREEN, Claimant–Appellant,

v.STATE of New York, Defendant–Respondent.Shawn Green, Claimant–Appellant Pro Se.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Dec. 23, 2011.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, GREEN, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Claimant, a prisoner incarcerated at the Elmira Correctional Facility, filed a claim that sought damages “due to various improprieties imposed upon him via disciplinary actions.” The Court of Claims denied claimant's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. The court determined, inter alia, that defendant's employees acted within the scope of their authority and followed applicable rules, and thus were therefore entitled to absolute immunity. Although claimant contends on appeal that the court erred in denying his motion, we note that defendant, as an alternative ground for affirmance ( see Parochial Bus Sys. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 545–546, 470 N.Y.S.2d 564, 458 N.E.2d 1241), contends on appeal that the claim should have been dismissed because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We agree. Although defendant did not raise that contention in support of its cross motion and thus failed to preserve it for our review ( cf. id.), we note that a question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time ( see Matter of Fry v. Village of Tarrytown, 89 N.Y.2d 714, 718, 658 N.Y.S.2d 205, 680 N.E.2d 578; Moulden v. White, 49 A.D.3d 1250, 1250–1251, 856 N.Y.S.2d 329).

In determining whether the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, the initial question is “[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim” ( Matter of Gross v. Perales, 72 N.Y.2d 231, 236, 532 N.Y.S.2d 68, 527 N.E.2d 1205, rearg. denied 72 N.Y.2d 1042, 534 N.Y.S.2d 940, 531 N.E.2d 660; see Buonanotte v. New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 A.D.3d 1142, 1144, 875 N.Y.S.2d 301, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 712, 2009 WL 1586923; Sarbro IX v. State of N.Y. Off. of Gen. Servs., 229 A.D.2d 910, 911, 645 N.Y.S.2d 212). Regardless of how a claim is characterized, one that requires, as a threshold matter, the review of an administrative agency's determination falls outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims ( see Gross, 72 N.Y.2d at 236, 532 N.Y.S.2d 68, 527 N.E.2d 1205; Buonanotte, 60 A.D.3d at 1143–1144, 875 N.Y.S.2d 301; Matter of Salahuddin v. Connell, 53 A.D.3d 898, 899, 861 N.Y.S.2d 850). Although claimant characterized his claim as one for money damages, upon our review of the record we conclude that adjudication of his claim requires review...