Opinion
# 2017-015-233 Claim No. 128855 Motion No. M-90205
05-26-2017
JABBAR A. BROWN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Jabbar A. Brown Pro se Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Ray A. Kyles Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim seeking damages for requiring that the claimant, an inmate, attend the Exposer Control Program and wear a Exposer Control Suit was dismissed for improper service and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-015-233 |
| Claimant(s): | JABBAR A. BROWN |
| Claimant short name: | BROWN |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128855 |
| Motion number(s): | M-90205 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Jabbar A. Brown Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Ray A. Kyles Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 26, 2017 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves to dismiss the instant claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (2) and (7) and Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9, 10 and 11 on the grounds of improper service of the claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Claimant, proceeding pro se, seeks damages for the period of time he was placed into the "Exposer Control Program" and made to wear an "Exposer Control Suit" while he was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility (Great Meadow) (defendant's Exhibit B, Claim, ¶ 3). According to the claim, the requirement that claimant participate in the program and wear an exposer suit came about after he was charged in a misbehavior report with lewd conduct while he was confined in the Great Meadow Behavioral Health Unit (BHU). Claimant alleges that the charge was "simply 'thrown out', and . . . so [was] the order for the Exposer Control Program and Exposer Control Suit" (id. at ¶ 4). Claimant alleges that the requirement that he attend the Exposer Control Program and wear the Exposer Control Suit resumed upon his re-entry into the BHU at Great Meadow on April 2, 2015 and continued until his transfer to Five Points Correctional Facility on July 3, 2015 (id. at ¶ 5). Claimant was again placed in the program and made to wear the special suit following another allegation of lewd conduct on November 20, 2016 (id. at ¶ 6). Claimant alleges that the requirement that he participate in the program and wear the suit continued after his transfers to Attica Correctional Facility on January 26, 2016 and Marcy Correctional Facility on June 8, 2016. Claimant alleges that the requirement that he participate in the Exposer Control Program and wear the Exposer Control Suit was punitive in nature and, as such, improperly imposed without a hearing in violation of his right to procedural due process.
In support of its dismissal motion, defendant contends that the claim was improperly served by regular mail on November 28, 2016 and, in any event, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, which defendant characterizes as seeking strictly equitable relief that should have been pursued in a proceeding under CPLR article 78. Claimant does not dispute that prison staff may not have mailed the claim by certified mail, return receipt requested, as he requested, but argues that this irregularity should be excused as it was not his fault. Claimant also contends that his placement in the Exposer Control Program and the requirement that he wear the Exposer Control Suit constitute restrictions on his liberty which may be considered within the analytical framework of a wrongful confinement cause of action.
Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) requires that the claim be filed with the Clerk of the Court and that "a copy shall be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general . . ." Inasmuch as the filing and service requirements of Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11are jurisdictional in nature, they must be strictly construed (Lurie v State of New York, 73 AD2d 1006, 1007 [3d Dept 1980], affd 52 NY2d 849 [1981]; see also Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). Absent waiver of the defense of improper service of the claim (Court of Claims Act § 11 [c]), service of the claim by ordinary mail is insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant (Encarnacion v State of New York, 133 AD3d 1049 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 919 [2016]; Brown v State of New York, 114 AD3d 632 [2d Dept 2014]; Fulton v State of New York, 35 AD3d 977 [3d Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]; Govan v State of New York, 301 AD2d 757 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]; Thompson v State of New York, 286 AD2d 831 [3d Dept 2001]). Defendant established through the submission of the envelope in which the claim was mailed that it was improperly served by ordinary mail, rather than one of the methods prescribed by Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i). Inasmuch as defendant preserved its objection to the manner of service by timely raising it as a basis for dismissal in the instant pre-answer dismissal motion (see Court of Claims Act § 11 [c]), the motion must be granted and the claim dismissed.
Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is limited to claims for money damages (NY Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9). This Court "does not have jurisdiction where an administrative procedure is available and the claim, in essence, 'would require review of an administrative agency's determination' " (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v State of New York, 86 AD3d 820, 820 [3d Dept 2011], quoting City of New York v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; see also Carver v State of New York, 79 AD3d 1393, 1394, [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]). This is because " '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, 1212 [3d Dept 2015]; Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d 1142, 1143-144 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; Guy v State of New York, 18 AD3d 936, 937 [3d Dept 2005]). Here, claimant is seeking damages based upon an administrative determination that he should be required to attend the Exposer Control Program and wear the Exposer Control Suit. While claimant characterizes the claim as one for money damages, the law is settled that "[r]egardless 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, 1353-1354 [3d Dept 2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 949 [2015]). Inasmuch as an evaluation of claimant's damages claim would require review of an administrative determination, his recourse is a proceeding pursuant to article 78 in the Supreme Court, not an action for money damages in the Court of Claims. Accordingly, even if service of the claim were proper, which it was not, dismissal would nevertheless be required for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Based on the foregoing, the defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.
May 26, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: Notice of Motion to Dismiss Claim dated Jan. 4, 2017; Affirmation of Ray A. Kyles dated Jan. 4, 2017 with Exhibits A and B; Verified response of Jabbar A. Brown sworn to Jan. 19, 2017 with Exhibits A and B.