The Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs' claim for money damages against defendants-respondents, individual State employees who at all times relevant to the instant matter were acting in their official capacities (see, Court of Claims Act § 9[4]; Sinhogar v. Parry, 53 N.Y.2d 424, 431). Plaintiffs' claims that these defendants were negligent are clearly premised upon "actions or determinations" made by these defendants in their" official roles" (Pleasant Ridge Townhouse Homeowners' Assn. v. Wickieri, 213 A.D.2d 611), and, consequently, the real party defendant in interest is the State (see, City of New York v. Maul, 239 A.D.2d 225). Plaintiffs have also failed to make out a cognizable constitutional claim under the 14^th Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 since there is no showing that plaintiff has been deprived of his substantive due process liberty interests (see, Mark G. v. Sabol, 247 A.D.2d 15, 29-30, lv granted 253 A.D.2d 1004;see also, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 201-202). Moreover, even if plaintiffs' constitutional rights had been violated, there is no indication that defendants-respondents were personally and directly involved in the deprivation of said rights (see,McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930, 934,cert denied 434 U.S. 1087; compare Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.