Opinion
# 2019-015-168 Claim No. 128421 Motion No. M-94152
07-17-2019
FRANK THOMAS, 14B2302 v. STATE OF NEW YORK
No Appearance Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss claim alleging an improper sentence computation by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision was granted on the ground this Court lacks jurisdiction to review administrative determinations such as this.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-015-168 |
| Claimant(s): | FRANK THOMAS, 14B2302 |
| Claimant short name: | THOMAS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128421 |
| Motion number(s): | M-94152 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | No Appearance |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 17, 2019 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), (7) and (8) on the grounds this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the administrative determination at issue in this claim and, in any event, the claim fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Claimant, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), seeks damages for wrongful confinement based upon an allegedly incorrect sentence computation. He alleges that the jail-time credit utilized by DOCCS in calculating his release date failed to include one year spent in local custody following the revocation of bail. Claimant further alleges his sentence was reversed and reduced on appeal, thereby rendering his continued confinement unlawful.
The law is clear that "[a]s a court of limited jurisdiction, the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction to grant strictly equitable relief" (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], citing Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670, 671 [3d Dept 1997] and Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413 [1954]). The threshold question in determining the issue of subject matter in the Court of Claims 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 NY2d 231, 236 [1988], rearg denied 72 NY2d 1042 [1988]; see also Guy v State of New York, 18 AD3d 936 [3d Dept 2005]). " 'The second inquiry, regardless of how a claimant categorizes a claim, is whether the claim would require review of an administrative agency's determination-which the Court of Claims has no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain' " (Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d 1142, 1143-1144 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009], quoting City of New York v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 2007]; see also Walker v State of New York, 151 AD3d 1147 [3d Dept 2017]; Feuer v State of New York, 101 AD3d 1550 [3d Dept 2012]; Green v State of New York, 90 AD3d 1577 [4th Dept 2011], rearg denied 92 AD3d 1269 [4th Dept 2012], lv dismissed and denied 18 NY3d 901 [2012]; Carver v State of New York, 79 AD3d 1393 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]; Hoffman v State of New York, 42 AD3d 641, 642 [3d Dept 2007]; Sidoti v State of New York, 115 AD2d 202 [3d Dept 1985]). While claimant characterizes the instant claim as one for money damages, it is clear that resolution of the matter will require review of DOCCS' administrative determination regarding the computation of claimant's conditional and maximum release dates. The proper procedural vehicle for challenging the administrative determination of claimant's conditional and maximum release date is a proceeding in the Supreme Court pursuant to articles 70 and/or 78 of the CPLR, not a plenary action in the Court of Claims (see e.g. People ex rel. Allen v Yelich,159 AD3d 1202 [3d Dept 2018], affd 32 NY3d 1144 [2018]; Matter of Brown v Annucci, 60 AD3d 1223 [3d Dept 2009]; Matter of Davidson v State of N.Y. Dept. of Correctional Servs., 53 AD3d 741 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 706 [2008]; see also Lublin v State of New York, 135 Misc 2d 419 [Ct Cl 1987], affd 135 AD2d 1155 [1st Dept 1987], lv denied 71 NY2d 802 [1988]). Here, claimant does not allege or otherwise contend that he successfully challenged DOCCS' administrative determination in the Supreme Court. As a result, review of DOCCS' determination regarding the computation of claimant's release dates would be required. As this Court lacks jurisdiction in this regard, the claim must be dismissed.
In fact, claimant remains imprisoned pending a determination of his motion for dismissal of the indictment in County Court (see People v Thomas, ___AD3d ___, 2019 WL2707940, NY Slip Op 05290 [4th Dept 2019]). While claimant succeeded in securing a vacatur of his sentence on his first appeal in his criminal case (see People v Thomas, 140 AD3d 1615 [4th Dept 2016]), the matter was remitted to the sentencing Court to impose the sentences promised or to afford the claimant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. As gleaned from a more recent Appellate Division decision (People v Thomas, ___AD3d ___, 2019 WL2707940, NY Slip Op 05290 [4th Dept 2019]), it appears claimant withdrew his plea on remittal and moved for dismissal of the indictment. There being no decision in the record on the dismissal motion, the Appellate Division remitted the matter to County Court for a decision (id.).
Relatedly, a claim for wrongful confinement accrues upon claimant's release from confinement (see e.g. Trammell v State of New York, 172 AD3d 1847 [3d Dept 2019]). Inasmuch as claimant remains confined, the claim has not yet accrued and the initiation of a wrongful confinement claim against the State is premature.
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is granted, without opposition, and the claim is dismissed.
July 17, 2019
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered:
1. Notice of motion dated June 20, 2019;
2. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, A.A.G. dated June 20, 2019, with Exhibits A and B.