Opinion
# 2017-015-256 Claim No. 127576 Motion No. M-90649
08-08-2017
DOUGLAS E. KAMPFER and BARBARA J. KAMPFER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Douglas E. Kampfer and Barbara J. Kampfer, Pro Se Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Thomas Trace, Esquire Of Counsel
Synopsis
Claim alleging the Department of Health and the NY Market Place overestimated a tax credit for health benefits was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-015-256 |
| Claimant(s): | DOUGLAS E. KAMPFER and BARBARA J. KAMPFER |
| Claimant short name: | Kampfer |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The Court has sua sponte amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 127576 |
| Motion number(s): | M-90649 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Douglas E. Kampfer and Barbara J. Kampfer, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Thomas Trace, Esquire Of Counsel |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | August 8, 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) (2), (7) and (8) on the ground the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.
Claimants, Douglas E. Kampfer and Barbara J. Kampfer, seek damages arising from the following acts or omissions by the State of New York as alleged in their claim:
"On February 22, 2016, at 35, 37 North Main Street, Gloversville, New York, the Defendant the State of New York [through] it's [sic] Department of Health and the N.Y. Health Market Place, did recklessly cause damages to the Claimants; whereby the State of New York knowingly allowed the Department of Health and the N.Y. Market Place to over estimate the Tax Credit available to the claimants for the Federal Subsidy on health benefits, from information supplied to the N.Y. Market Place in regards to the claimant income.
As a result of the reckless conduct of the Defendants, claimants had damages in the loss of their 2015 Federal income tax refund."
In support of its dismissal motion, defendant contends that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because an award of money damages would require review of an administrative determination, a matter not within this Court's jurisdiction which is limited to claims for money damages (NY Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9). Where an award of damages requires review of an administrative determination, the Court does not have jurisdiction (Pratow Corp. v State of New York, 148 AD3d 1065 [2d Dept 2017]; Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v State of New York, 86 AD3d 820, 820 [3d Dept 2011]; City of New York v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; 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, claimants seek damages based upon an administrative determination regarding the amount of an estimated tax credit to which they were allegedly entitled. While claimants characterize 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 the adjudication of the claim would require review of an administrative determination, claimants' recourse is a proceeding in the Supreme Court pursuant to article 78, not an action for money damages in the Court of Claims. Accordingly, dismissal of the claim is required for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Based on the foregoing, the defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.
August 8, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court considered the following papers:
1. Notice of motion dated June 19, 2017;
2. Affirmation of Thomas Trace dated June 19, 2017 with exhibits;
3. Affidavit of Douglas E. Kampfer and Barbara J. Kampfer sworn to June 23, 2017.