Opinion
# 2017-041-005 Claim No. 127760 Motion No. M-89550
02-09-2017
BRIAN TUITT Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: J. Gardner Ryan, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
Case information
UID: | 2017-041-005 |
Claimant(s): | BRIAN TUITT |
Claimant short name: | TUITT |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 127760 |
Motion number(s): | M-89550 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
Claimant's attorney: | BRIAN TUITT Pro Se |
Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: J. Gardner Ryan, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | February 9, 2017 |
City: | Albany |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant moves for a "Preliminary Injunction" against the defendant "for adverse action taken by defendants in retaliation for Plaintiff requesting legal documents and preforming [sic] a protective action under the US Constitution First Amendment."
Defendant opposes the claimant's motion.
The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and the powers conferred upon it do not include, under the facts and circumstances presented, the authority to provide the type of strictly equitable relief (preliminary injunction) requested by claimant (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005]; Frasier v State of New York, 11 Misc 3d 497 [Ct Cl 2005]; Matter of Milner v New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 4 Misc 3d 221, 225 [Ct Cl 2004], affd 24 AD3d 977 [3d Dept 2005]; Tompkins v State of New York, 33 Misc 2d 828 [Ct Cl 1962]).
In City of New York v State of New York (46 AD3d 1168, 1169-1170 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]), the court explains that:
"Two inquiries must be made to determine if the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction. As that court has 'no jurisdiction to grant strictly equitable relief' (Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413, 416 [1954]), but may grant incidental equitable relief so long as the primary claim seeks to recover money damages in appropriation, contract or tort cases (see Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670, 671 [1997]), 'the threshold question is "[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim"' (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], quoting Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]). 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 (see Hoffman v State of New York, 42 AD3d 641, 642 [2007]), as review of such determinations are properly brought only in Supreme Court in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753, 757 [1991])."
In order for the Court to "grant an immediate injunction," it would necessarily be required to review the administrative acts and/or omissions of the defendant, and as set forth above, it lacks jurisdiction to do so (see City of New York v State of New York (46 AD3d 1168, 1169-1170 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]). The appropriate venue, if any, for claimant's requested relief is a CPLR article 78 proceeding.
Claimant's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
February 9, 2017
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers considered:
1. Claimant's Motion For Preliminary Injunction, filed November 14, 2016; 2. Affidavit of Brian Tuitt, sworn to November 3, 2016, and attached exhibits; 3. Affirmation of J. Gardner Ryan, dated December 22, 2016.