State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 22, 2016 522566 

________________________________

ARTHUR BLAKE, 

Appellant, 

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: November 15, 2016

Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Arthur Blake, Coxsackie, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A.

Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.),

entered November 13, 2015, which granted defendant's motion to

dismiss the claim. 

Claimant, a prison inmate, commenced this action alleging

that prison staff prohibited the availability of legal material

that impeded his access to the courts, denied him due process in

challenging his improper removal from his program assignment,

threatened him for filing grievances and retaliated against him

by compromising his ability to file grievances through the

facility mail system. Defendant answered and then moved to

dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a

cause of action. The Court of Claims granted defendant's motion,

and this appeal ensued.
-2- 522566 

We affirm. Although the claim was characterized as one for

money damages, a review of the claim discloses that claimant was

essentially seeking judicial review of actions by prison

officials regarding the conditions of his confinement, including

the denial of access to legal material, the breach of

confidentiality rules regarding grievance matters and

interference with the filing of grievances. As alternative

remedies are available to address these issues – including the

grievance process, a CPLR article 78 proceeding or an action in

the nature of mandamus – such claims were properly dismissed (see

Flemming v State of New York, 120 AD3d 848, 849 [2014]; Deleon v

State of New York, 64 AD3d 840, 840-841 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d

712 [2009]; Matter of Salahuddin v Connell, 53 AD3d 898, 900

[2008]). Furthermore, recognition of the state constitutional

tort claims are unnecessary given the additional avenues of

redress that are available (see Martinez v City of Schenectady,

97 NY2d 78, 83 [2001]; Shelton v New York State Liq. Auth., 61

AD3d 1145, 1150-1151 [2009]). To the extent that claimant

asserts claims pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the state is not a

"person" in that regard and the Court of Claims lacks

jurisdiction over such claims (see Brown v State of New York, 89

NY2d 172, 184-185 [1996]; Flemming v State of New York, 120 AD3d

at 849). 

We also find no error in the Court of Claims' dismissal for

failure to state a cause of action of the claims alleging

improper removal of claimant from his prison job and assault. An

inmate has "no statutory or constitutional right to a prison job"

(Evans v State of New York, 57 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2008]

[internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 12

NY3d 704 [2009]), and "[w]hether [claimant] ultimately will be

entitled to the incidental monetary relief he seeks cannot be

ascertained without reviewing the underlying administrative

determination, which is a quintessential example of a dispute

governed under CPLR article 78" (Matter of Salahuddin v Connell,

53 AD3d at 900 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). 

Lastly, with regard to the claim of assault, claimant's

allegations did not sufficiently set forth "physical conduct

placing [him] in imminent apprehension of harmful contact" (Gould

v Rempel, 99 AD3d 759, 760 [2012] [internal quotation marks and

citation omitted]; see generally Guntlow v Barbera, 76 AD3d 760,
-3- 522566 

766 [2010], appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 906 [2010]).

Garry, J.P., Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court