Opinion
# 2016-045-044 Claim No. 127910 Motion No. M-88703
09-19-2016
MICHAEL P. TRANTEL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Michael P. Trantel, Pro Se By: No Appearance Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss inmate's claim based on review of disciplinary hearing which was upheld on appeal granted. Claim should have been brought as an Article 78 in Supreme Court.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-045-044 |
| Claimant(s): | MICHAEL P. TRANTEL |
| Claimant short name: | TRANTEL |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 127910 |
| Motion number(s): | M-88703 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA |
| Claimant's attorney: | Michael P. Trantel, Pro Se By: No Appearance |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | September 19, 2016 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Defendant's Notice of Motion, Defendant's Affirmation in Support with annexed Exhibit A.
Defendant, the State of New York, has brought this pre-answer motion seeking an order dismissing the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Claimant, a pro se inmate, has failed to oppose this motion.
The underlying claim in this matter relates to claimant's failure to provide urine samples while he was incarcerated at the Altona Correctional Facility. As a result claimant was issued misbehavior reports on February 17, 2016 and February 18, 2016. On February 29, 2016, after the completion of a hearing, claimant was found guilty of urinalysis testing violations and sentenced to certain losses of privileges and keeplock status for 30 days. Claimant appealed the hearing decision and on April 7, 2016 the decision was affirmed through the administrative inmate disciplinary program.
Defendant argues that the Court of Claims does not have the appropriate jurisdiction to review this claim.
Claimant requests in his claim that he be afforded a new hearing and that his misbehavior reports be "reversed, expunged or dismissed."
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 (Davis v State of New York, 129 AD3d 1353 [3d Dept 2015][internal quotations and citations omitted]). Generally, an administrative agency's determination may be reviewed only in the context of a CPLR Article 78 proceeding commenced in Supreme Court, and not in an action brought in the Court of Claims (Hope for Youth, Inc. v State of New York, 125 AD3d 1211 [3d Dept 2015][internal quotations and citations omitted]; Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231 [1988]). Claimant's allegations in the claim would require this Court to review an administrative agency's determination. As a result, the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is not invoked in this matter and the claim must be dismissed.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion is granted and the claim is hereby dismissed.
September 19, 2016
Hauppauge, New York
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims