Opinion
# 2021-015-020 Claim No. 135364 Motion No. M-96177
02-09-2021
TIMOTHY BEST v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Timothy Best, Pro Se Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Glenn C. King, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to review determinations of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-015-020 |
| Claimant(s): | TIMOTHY BEST |
| Claimant short name: | BEST |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 135364 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96177 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Timothy Best, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Glenn C. King, Esq., Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 9, 2021 |
| 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) on the ground the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
In this difficult to decipher handwritten claim, claimant, proceeding pro se, seeks damages arising from the revocation of his New York State Driver's License without a hearing.
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 made by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), which this Court has no jurisdiction to do. Indeed, 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). 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, 1143-1144 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; Guy v State of New York, 18 AD3d 936, 937 [3d Dept 2005]; Matter of Miller v State of New York, 283 AD2d 830 [3d Dept 2001] [Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to review determination of the DMV).
Here, claimant is seeking damages based upon an administrative determination regarding the revocation of his driver's license. 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]). As adjudication of the claim would require review of an administrative agency determination, claimant's recourse is a proceeding in the Supreme Court pursuant to article 78, not an action for money damages in the Court of Claims. To the extent claimant may be seeking review of a criminal court determination, the result is the same. Claimant's recourse is a direct appeal, not a plenary 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.
February 9, 2021
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered:
1. Notice of motion dated November 5, 2020;
2. Affirmation in support dated November 5, 2020, with Exhibit A;
3. Papers submitted in opposition dated November 27, 2020.