Opinion
519379
2015-06-18
Robert DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent.
Garry, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ., concur.
Robert Davis, Auburn, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., GARRY, EGAN JR. and ROSE, JJ.
LAHTINEN, J.P.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Milano, J.), entered June 6, 2014, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim.
Claimant commenced this action alleging, among other things, that the Board of Parole failed to personally interview him as required by Executive Law § 259–i(2)(a)(i) before making its 2013 decision denying him parole. Defendant moved to dismiss the claim asserting, among other grounds, that the Court of Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Claims agreed and granted defendant's motion. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. “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” ( Green v. State of New York, 90 A.D.3d 1577, 1578, 935 N.Y.S.2d 779 [2011], lv. dismissed and denied 18 N.Y.3d 901, 940 N.Y.S.2d 210, 963 N.E.2d 787 [2012]; see Hope for Youth, Inc. v. State of New York, 125 A.D.3d 1211, 1212, 4 N.Y.S.3d 690 [2015]; City of New York v. State of New York, 46 A.D.3d 1168, 1169, 847 N.Y.S.2d 768 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 705, 857 N.Y.S.2d 37, 886 N.E.2d 802 [2008] ). Although claimant framed his claim as one for money damages, he is, in essence, seeking judicial review of the Board's alleged failure to follow proper procedures when denying him parole. Such challenge involves agency action that is reviewable in Supreme Court via a CPLR article 78 proceeding ( see e.g. Matter of Leung v. Evans, 120 A.D.3d 1478, 1479, 991 N.Y.S.2d 917 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 914, 2 N.Y.S.3d 844, 26 N.E.3d 783 [2015]; Matter of Rivera v. New York State Div. of Parole, 119 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 990 N.Y.S.2d 295 [2014] ), and, accordingly, the Court of Claims properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction ( see e.g. Feuer v. State of New York, 101 A.D.3d 1550, 1551, 957 N.Y.S.2d 499 [2012]; Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. State of New York, 86 A.D.3d 820, 820, 926 N.Y.S.2d 923 [2011]; Buonanotte v. New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 A.D.3d 1142, 1144, 875 N.Y.S.2d 301 [2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 712, 882 N.Y.S.2d 682, 910 N.E.2d 430 [2009] ).
Claimant's remaining contentions have been considered and are unpersuasive.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.