Opinion
# 2019-041-007 Claim No. 131894 Motion No. M-93199 Cross-Motion No. CM-93254
01-23-2019
ANDREW HENDRICKS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
ANDREW HENDRICKS Pro Se HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim alleging that defendant removed claimant from inmate Tailor Shop Program in retaliation for inmate filing a facility grievance is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a cause of action.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-041-007 |
| Claimant(s): | ANDREW HENDRICKS |
| Claimant short name: | HENDRICKS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 131894 |
| Motion number(s): | M-93199 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-93254 |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | ANDREW HENDRICKS Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | January 23, 2019 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant moves to dismiss defendant's third, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses. Defendant opposes claimant's motion and cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action and because defendant is entitled to absolute immunity for its discretionary decision to remove claimant from the Clinton Correctional (Clinton) Facility Tailor Shop Program for "security reasons." Claimant opposes defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.
The claim alleges that defendant violated the New York State Constitution by removing the inmate/claimant from the Clinton Tailor Shop Program. Defendant allegedly advised claimant that he was removed from the program for "security reasons," but claimant alleges that the removal was retaliation for claimant having filed a facility grievance against a Clinton correction officer.
The defendant's potentially dispositive cross-motion for summary judgment will be considered first.
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. The subject matter jurisdiction of Court of Claims is invoked where money damages are the essential object of the claim, unlike an instance where the principal claim is equitable in nature (such as to review action or inaction by a state agency), with monetary relief being incidental to the principal claim (see Harvard Fin. Servs. v State of New York, 266 AD2d 685, 685 [3d Dept 1999]; Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]).
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])."
Here, claimant challenges the administrative action of defendant in allegedly removing him from the facility Tailor Shop Program. The appropriate remedy for such a challenge is an inmate grievance proceeding and, if necessary, an CPLR article 78 proceeding.
The claimant asks the Court of Claims to review an administrative action of defendant where the essential object of the claim is equitable, rather than monetary, relief. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim.
The claim also fails to state a cause of action. Although the Court of Appeals has recognized a narrowly defined cause of action for a state constitutional tort in the Court of Claims (Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, 177-178 [1996]), "no such claim will lie where the claimant has an adequate remedy in an alternate forum" (Shelton v New York State Liquor Authority, 61 AD3d 1145, 1150 [3d Dept 2009]; see Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 83-84 [2001]).
Claimant's challenge to his removal from the Tailor Shop Program may be pursued in the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR Article 78 (see e.g. Matter of Robinson v Foreman, 98 AD3d 765 [3d Dept 2012]). Claimant's state constitutional tort claim thus "does not lie" in the Court of Claims (Shelton, 61 AD3d at 1151).
Finally, defendant is entitled to judgment dismissing the claim based upon its immunity defense. Defendant's decision to remove claimant from the facility Tailor Shop Program for "security reasons" was made pursuant to facility Directive 4803 which states, in pertinent part, as follows: "When a program and/or work assignment is provided to an inmate, it is done so entirely at the discretion of the facility administration."
Discretionary determinations, such as the one involved here, are generally immune from tort liability (see Tango v Tulevech (61 NY2d 34, 40 [1983]: "[W]hen official action involves the exercise of discretion, the officer is not liable for the injurious consequences of that action even if resulting from negligence or malice"; see also McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d 194, 202 [2009]).
The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim is granted.
Claimant's motion to dismiss affirmative defenses is denied as moot.
The claim is dismissed.
January 23, 2019
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion to Dismiss Affirmative Defenses, filed November 21, 2018; 2. Affidavit of Andrew Hendricks, sworn to November 13, 2018, and attached exhibits; 3. Defendant's Notice of Cross-Motion, filed December 12, 2018; 4. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, dated December 10, 2018, and attached exhibits; 5. Affidavit in Opposition of Andrew Hendricks, sworn to December 24, 2018.