Opinion
May 17, 2001.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (McNamara, J.), filed April 10, 2000, which denied claimant's application pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for permission to file a late notice of claim.
Robert Miller, Farmingdale, appellant in person
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Rose and, Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Although the nature of claimant's cause of action is not clear from the claim and the claim does not request any specific relief, it is apparent that claimant seeks to challenge an administrative determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles. The appropriate remedy for such a challenge is a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see, e.g., Matter of Levy v. Jackson, 266 A.D.2d 636) and, therefore, any monetary damages would be purely incidental. In these circumstances, the Court of Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant claimant's motion for permission to file a late claim (see, Matter of McCullough v. State of New York, 278 A.D.2d 709,lv dismissed 96 N.Y.2d 754 [Feb. 8, 2001], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 706 [Mar. 22, 2001]). In any event, contrary to claimant's argument, the Court of Claims correctly concluded that the expiration of any possible Statute of Limitations applicable to the claim precluded the court from granting the motion (see, Bergmann v. State of New York, 281 A.D.2d 731, 733-734, 722 N.Y.S.2d 82, 85; Williams v. State of New York, 235 A.D.2d 776, 777, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 806).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.