Opinion
# 2017-038-511 Claim No. 126367 Motion No. M-88552 Cross-Motion No. CM-88698
02-01-2017
VERONICA WHITE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
LEVINE & GILBERT By: Harvey A. Levine, Esq. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction denied. Allegations in the claim for reimbursement of moneys withheld from State employee's paychecks sounded in monetary damages, but the dispute over the legality of withholding reimbursement for workers compensation payments requires a threshold determination of whether the Comptroller's determination to withhold monies was illegal or otherwise unauthorized. Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such a dispute, which must be subject to judicial review in Supreme Court upon a petition pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR. Any monies improperly withheld would be recoverable in Supreme Court as incidental damages.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-038-511 |
| Claimant(s): | VERONICA WHITE |
| Claimant short name: | WHITE |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126367 |
| Motion number(s): | M-88552 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-88698 |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | LEVINE & GILBERT By: Harvey A. Levine, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 1, 2017 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
This claim, filed by a State employee, alleges that defendant is illegally deducting monies from claimant's paycheck purportedly to reimburse her employer for salary paid to claimant while she was receiving workers' compensation benefits. Claimant moves for summary judgment (Motion No. M-88552), defendant opposes, and cross-moves for dismissal of the claim on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (CM-88698). Claimant opposes defendant's cross motion.
An on-the-record conference was conducted on September 28, 2016, at which further argument on the motion and cross motion was heard.
The Court will turn first to defendant's cross motion inasmuch as it challenges the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The claim alleges that claimant is a correction officer who is employed by defendant and was disabled in the course of her duties. It further alleges that defendant was obligated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to pay her full salary during the period of her disability, that defendant approved workers' compensation benefits, and that claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits of $22,8111.62 in a lump sum. The claim alleges that on June 11, 2015 defendant commenced illegally withdrawing monies from claimant's paycheck in violation of law because defendant failed to file a request for reimbursement for the salary paid claimant pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law (WCL) § 25 (4) (a), and because the CBA does not entitle defendant to reimbursement of the salary it paid. The claim seeks damages in the form of reimbursement from the monies withdrawn from claimant's "paychecks past, present and future" (Claim number 126367, ¶ 4). Defendant argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because it seeks to review the determination of the Office of the State Comptroller to deduct the monies from claimant's paycheck to recover the overpayment of salary, and also because it seeks injunctive relief and should have been brought in a proceeding under CPLR article 78. Claimant argues that the claim was properly brought as a claim for damages in the Court of Claims because it seeks monies due and owed to her.
As pertinent here, Supreme Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to review whether the actions of state officials were "in violation of lawful procedure, [were] affected by an error of law or w[ere] arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" (CPLR 7803 [3]; see CPLR 7804 [b]), while the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims "is limited to actions seeking money damages against the State in appropriation, contract or tort cases" (Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670, 671 [3d Dept 1997], citing Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]; Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413, 417 [1954]). The essential nature of the claim is not necessarily defined by a party's characterization of the claim (see Buonanotte, supra at 1143; Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 761 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005]), but rests upon identification of the issues actually presented in the claim (see Sidoti v State of New York, 115 AD2d 202, 203-204 [3d Dept 1985]).
Claimant frames the claim as an action to recover damages due to the illegal actions of defendant in withholding money owed to her, but consideration of this matter necessarily requires a threshold evaluation of whether the State Comptroller properly withheld money from her paychecks. This matter is nearly on all fours with the Appellate Division decision in (Hoffman v State of New York 42 AD3d 641 [3d Dept 2007]), in which a State employee brought a claim for money damages in the Court of Claims to recover money that had been withheld from a check for back pay by the Comptroller as reimbursement for unemployment insurance benefits that had been paid to her during a period of suspension from employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for the following reasons:
"To determine if the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction, '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] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Here, although claimant contends that her claim is for breach of contract, our review of the record indicates that she primarily is seeking to annul the Comptroller's administrative decision to issue a check that deducted the amount of unemployment insurance benefits from her back pay. Plainly, any monetary recovery would be incidental to that determination. Inasmuch as '[t]his is a quintessential example of a dispute governed under CPLR article 78'(id. at 761) and the Court of Claims has no subject matter jurisdiction over this type of dispute (see Guy v State of New York, 18 AD3d 936, 937 [2005])"
(Hoffman v State of New York, 42 AD3d at 642; see also 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]). The instant matter is factually distinct from Hoffman because claimant seeks reimbursement of continuing deductions from her paychecks for workers' compensation benefits as compared to the claim in Hoffman for reimbursement of a one-time deduction from backpay for unemployment benefits, but those are distinctions without difference with regard to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. This claim, like the claim in Hoffman, seeks a threshold judicial determination of whether the Comptroller's decision to withhold funds was lawful, and any monetary recovery would be incidental to that determination, and accordingly, this dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on a petition pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR. Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, and defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim will be granted.
Given the absence of subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, defendant's remaining arguments in support of its cross motion for dismissal of the claim, as well as claimant's motion for summary judgment, need not be addressed. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that motion number M-88552 is DENIED, and it is further
ORDERED, that motion number CM-88698 is GRANTED, and claim number 126367 is DISMISSED.
February 1, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers considered:
(1) Claim number 126367, filed June 29, 2015; (2) Verified Answer, filed August 19, 2015; (3) Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment (M-88552), dated May 12, 2016; (4) Affirmation of Harvey A. Levine, Esq., in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, dated May 12, 2016, with Exhibits A-D; (5) Notice of Cross Motion to Dismiss (CM-88698), dated June 7, 2016; (6) Affirmation of Anthony Rotondi, AAG, in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Cross Motion to Dismiss, dated June 7, 2016, with Exhibits A-C and affidavit of Heather Lawson, sworn to October 2, 2015, with Exhibits 1-5; (7) Affirmation in Opposition of Harvey A. Levine, Esq., dated September 15, 2016; (8) Reply Affirmation of Anthony Rotondi, AAG, dated September 19, 2016; (9) Correspondence of Anthony Rotondi, AAG, dated September 30, 2016, with attachment.