Opinion
534835
06-01-2023
Robert CUMBERLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent.
Robert Cumberland, Attica, appellant pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kevin C. Hu of counsel), for respondent.
Robert Cumberland, Attica, appellant pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kevin C. Hu of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Fisher, J. Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Francis T. Collins, J.), entered January 10, 2022, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim. Claimant, an incarcerated individual in a state correctional facility, commenced this action seeking monetary damages alleging, among other things, that he was improperly removed from his prison work assignment in retaliation for filing inmate grievances and that his removal was racially discriminatory, unconstitutional and violated correctional rules. Defendant served an answer and then moved to dismiss on CPLR 3211(a) grounds, including failure to state a cause of action and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which claimant opposed. The Court of Claims granted defendant's motion and dismissed the claim. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. "Jurisdiction in the Court of Claims is fixed by the N.Y. Constitution and by statute ( N.Y. Const, art VI, § 9 ; Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9 ) and generally pertains to money damage awards against the State in either appropriation, contract or tort cases" ( Sidoti v. State of New York, 115 A.D.2d 202, 203, 495 N.Y.S.2d 280 [3d Dept. 1985] [citation omitted], citing Court of Claims Act § 9[2], and Psaty v. Duryea, 306 N.Y. 413, 416, 118 N.E.2d 584 [1954] ). To the extent that claimant seeks review of the denial of his several inmate grievances, the conditions of his confinement, wrongful confinement resulting from his termination from his job assignment and allegations of discriminatory treatment, including any related administrative determinations on such matters, these must be made in the context of a special proceeding in Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see Jones v. State of New York, 171 A.D.3d 1362, 1364, 98 N.Y.S.3d 366 [3d Dept. 2019], appeal dismissed 33 N.Y.3d 1056, 103 N.Y.S.3d 350, 127 N.E.3d 308 [2019] ; Matter of Barnes v. State of New York, 164 A.D.3d 977, 978, 83 N.Y.S.3d 356 [3d Dept. 2018] ; see also Correction Law § 139 ; 7 NYCRR part 701). Likewise, claimant's attempt to obtain judicial review of the alleged failure of prison officials to follow proper procedure and rules "involves agency action that is reviewable in Supreme Court via a CPLR article 78 proceeding" ( Davis v. State of New York, 129 A.D.3d 1353, 1354, 13 N.Y.S.3d 598 [3d Dept. 2015], appeal dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 949, 17 N.Y.S.3d 66, 38 N.E.3d 810 [2015] ). Given that "review of an administrative agency's determination falls outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims" ( id. at 1353–1354, 13 N.Y.S.3d 598 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]) – and, however characterized, claimant's allegations would require review of such determinations concerning his grievances and his removal from the food handler certification program – the Court of Claims properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain them (see Graham v. State of New York, 212 A.D.3d 955, 956, 181 N.Y.S.3d 395 [3d Dept. 2023], appeal dismissed 39 N.Y.3d 1117, 187 N.Y.S.3d 158, 208 N.E.3d 746 [2023] ; Thomas v. State of New York, 206 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 170 N.Y.S.3d 637 [3d Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 904, 2022 WL 17096847 [2022], 199 N.E.3d 482 ; Nasca v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 205 A.D.3d 1169, 1170, 169 N.Y.S.3d 176 [3d Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 905, 2022 WL 17684489 [2022], 200 N.E.3d 1020 ; Pratow Corp. v. State of New York, 148 A.D.3d 1065, 1066, 48 N.Y.S.3d 622 [3d Dept. 2017] ; Hope for Youth, Inc. v. State of New York, 125 A.D.3d 1211, 1212–1213, 4 N.Y.S.3d 690 [3d Dept. 2015] ; see also Matter of Gross v. Perales, 72 N.Y.2d 231, 235–236, 532 N.Y.S.2d 68, 527 N.E.2d 1205 [1988] ). Claimant also seeks monetary damages for constitutional torts. However, "while a private cause of action to recover monetary damages for state constitutional violations is permissible in certain limited situations, this narrow remedy does not apply where an adequate remedy is available to the claimant in an alternate forum. Here, claimant had numerous alternative legal remedies and forums in which to enforce his constitutional rights ..., including a federal civil rights lawsuit in federal court" or inmate grievances and CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging any denial thereof ( Jones v. State of New York, 171 A.D.3d at 1363, 98 N.Y.S.3d 366, 98 N.Y.S.3d [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 N.Y.2d 78, 83–84, 735 N.Y.S.2d 868, 761 N.E.2d 560 [2001] ; Alsaifullah v. State of New York, 166 A.D.3d 1426, 1426–1427, 88 N.Y.S.3d 676 [3d Dept. 2018] ; cf. Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 177–178, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 674 N.E.2d 1129 [1996] ). To the extent that claimant may be relying on alleged violations of federal constitutional provisions, "federal constitutional claims may not be asserted [against defendant] in the Court of Claims, given that the statutory basis for such claims, 42 USC § 1983, authorizes claims only against a ‘person’ and defendant is not a person within the meaning of this statute" ( Oppenheimer v. State of New York, 152 A.D.3d 1006, 1008, 60 N.Y.S.3d 524 [3d Dept. 2017], citing Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729, 734 n 4, 129 S.Ct. 2108, 173 L.Ed.2d 920 [2009] ; see Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d at 184–185, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 674 N.E.2d 1129 ; Kelly v. State of New York, 206 A.D.3d 1309, 1310, 171 N.Y.S.3d 214 [3d Dept. 2022], appeal dismissed 39 N.Y.3d 975, 180 N.Y.S.3d 549, 201 N.E.3d 310 [2023] ; Moreland v. State of New York, 200 A.D.3d 1362, 1365, 161 N.Y.S.3d 342 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 906, 2022 WL 1260066 [2022], 188 N.E.3d 136 ). As such, the court properly determined that claimant did not state a claim pursuant to the N.Y. Constitution and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal constitutional claim (see CPLR 3211[a][2], [7] ). Accordingly, the claim was properly dismissed.
Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker and Ceresia, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.