Opinion
865 CA 14-01786
07-02-2015
Alberto POLANCO, Claimant–Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Defendant–Respondent. (Claim No. 123819.).
Alberto Polanco, Claimant–Appellant Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
Alberto Polanco, Claimant–Appellant
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of Counsel), for Defendant–Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Claimant, a prisoner at the Auburn Correctional Facility, commenced this action seeking damages based on the alleged negligence of the “State Parole Board Employees [in] fail[ing] to perform acts within the scope of their employment and in the discharge of their official duties.” The Court of Claims granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and that defendant is absolutely immune from liability. We affirm.
Contrary to claimant's contention, “[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” (Green v. State of New York, 90 A.D.3d 1577, 1578, 935 N.Y.S.2d 779, lv. dismissed in part and denied in part 18 N.Y.3d 901, 940 N.Y.S.2d 210, 963 N.E.2d 787 ). “Although claimant characterized his claim as one for money damages, upon our review of the record we conclude that adjudication of his claim requires review of the underlying administrative determination, over which the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction” (id. at 1578–1579, 935 N.Y.S.2d 779 ). In any event, the court also properly granted the motion based on absolute immunity. It is well established that “[d]eterminations pertaining to parole and its revocation ... are deemed strictly sovereign and quasi-judicial in nature and, accordingly, [defendant], in making such determinations, is absolutely immune from tort liability” (Semkus v. State of New York, 272 A.D.2d 74, 75, 708 N.Y.S.2d 288, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 761, 714 N.Y.S.2d 711, 737 N.E.2d 953 ; see Arteaga v. State of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 212, 217, 532 N.Y.S.2d 57, 527 N.E.2d 1194 ; Mertens v. State of New York, 73 A.D.3d 1376, 1377, 901 N.Y.S.2d 744, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 706, 2010 WL 3546705 ). Here, “claimant has not articulated any facts to support his claim that the [Parole Board employees] acted in excess of their authority or in violation of any relevant rules or regulations” (Loret v. State of New York, 106 A.D.3d 1159, 1159, 964 N.Y.S.2d 430, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 852, 2013 WL 5614435 ; see Varela v. State of New York, 283 A.D.2d 841, 841, 724 N.Y.S.2d 917 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.