Opinion
# 2017-032-015 Claim No. 128776 Motion No. M-89612
03-23-2017
SHALINA STEWART, 177 BUFFALO LLC, JANE AND JOHN DOE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, KINGS COUNTY
Shalina Stewart, Pro Se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Lawrence E. Kozar, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-032-015 |
| Claimant(s): | SHALINA STEWART, 177 BUFFALO LLC, JANE AND JOHN DOE |
| Claimant short name: | STEWART |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, KINGS COUNTY |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128776 |
| Motion number(s): | M-89612 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | Shalina Stewart, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Lawrence E. Kozar, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | March 23, 2017 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
On November 7, 2016, Shalina Stewart filed the instant claim against the State of New York and the Civil Court of the City of New York, alleging that she was wrongfully evicted from a building in Brooklyn, New York, when the court failed to consider proof that she owned the building in question. In lieu of an answer, defendant moves to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the Court of Claims lacks both the authority to review proceedings in Civil Court and the jurisdiction to award the equitable relief sought. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the unopposed motion and dismisses the claim.
It is well settled that the Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction wherein claims are primarily brought against the State of New York and certain public entities (see Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]; McGuinness v New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., 41 AD3d 557, 557 [2d Dept 2007]; Plath v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 304 AD2d 885, 886-887 [3d Dept 2003]). Although it is not entirely clear from the contents of the claim, to the extent that claimants seek a review of rulings issued by the Civil Court of the City of New York, Housing Part, the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to intervene in ongoing matters in other courts or to review judicial rulings made in connection therewith (see Hoffman v State of New York, 42 AD3d 641, 642 [3d Dept 2007]; Rosenstein v State of New York, 37 AD3d 208, 208-209 [1st Dept 2007]; Vasile v State of New York, UID No. 2000-019-535 [Ct Cl, Lebous, J., Sept. 22, 2000]). Furthermore, although the claim is characterized as one for money damages, a review of the claim discloses that claimants are essentially seeking judicial review of actions by one or more judge(s) in New York City Civil Court regarding her alleged eviction and/or removal from the property in question, including the failure to consider certain evidence and subsequent "illegal lockouts" on the property (Claim ¶ 2). As alternative remedies are available to address these issues - including a CPLR article 78 proceeding or an action in the nature of mandamus - such claims must be dismissed because "any monetary recovery would be incidental to [their] determination" (Hoffman v State of New York, 42 AD3d at 642 [3d Dept 2007]; see Blake v State of New York, 145 AD3d 1336, 1337 [3d Dept 2016]; City of New York v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005]).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that defendants' motion number M-89612 is granted, and claim number 128776 is dismissed.
March 23, 2017
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: 1. Claim, verified by claimant Shalina Stewart on October 25, 2016, with attachments. 2. Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss, affirmed by Lawrence E. Kozar, AAG, on December 5, 2016, with exhibit.