State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 26, 2015 518360 

________________________________

HOPE FOR YOUTH, INC.,

Individually and in its 

Capacity as a Member of 

Community Residence 

Insurance Savings Plan SI 

Trust,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: January 15, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Wayne J. Schaefer, Smithtown, for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Paul

Groenwegen of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Lahtinen, J.P.

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

entered April 1, 2013, which granted defendant's motion to

dismiss the claim.

Claimant was a member of the Community Residence Insurance

Savings Plan (hereinafter CRISP), a workers' compensation selfinsured trust (see Workers' Compensation Law § 50 [3-a])

comprised primarily of nonprofit entities providing health and

social services. In May 2010, the Workers' Compensation Board

informed CRISP that it was underfunded. CRISP decided to stop
-2- 518360 

providing workers' compensation coverage for its members at the

end of 2010, but it informed members that it would provide a runoff in which it continued to handle existing claims and meet

Board requirements until all pending claims and assessments had

been paid. The Board notified CRISP members in March 2011 of the

need to maintain sufficient cash reserves or the Board would be

required to take over administration of the trust with

concomitant additional costs to members. 

By June 2011, CRISP was more than $2 million short in

assessment funds and the Board informed CRISP and its members

that its assumption of administration of the trust was imminent. 

CRISP contends that, although a Board administrator indicated in

mid-June 2011 that a one-month extension would likely be granted

and CRISP raised more than the $2 million required by the Board

by June 28, 2011, the Board nonetheless notified CRISP and its

members on June 28, 2011 that it was assuming control as of

August 1, 2011. The Board takeover of the trust cost claimant

additional funds. Claimant brought this claim alleging, among

other things, interference with property, conversion,

interference with contract, and fraud and deceit. The Court of

Claims granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim upon the

ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Claimant

appeals.

We affirm. The limited jurisdiction of the Court of Claims

does not include, among other things, a situation "where an

administrative procedure is available and the claim, in essence,

'would require review of an administrative agency's

determination'" (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v State of New York, 86 AD3d

820, 820 [2011], quoting City of New York v State of New York, 46

AD3d 1168, 1169 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; see Carver

v State of New York, 79 AD3d 1393, 1394 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d

707 [2011]). Generally, "an administrative agency's

determination may be reviewed only in the context of a CPLR

article 78 proceeding commenced in Supreme Court, and not in an

action brought in the Court of Claims" (Buonanotte v New York

State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d 1142,

1144 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; see Feuer v State of

New York, 101 AD3d 1550, 1551 [2012]). 
-3- 518360 

Here, the claim basically challenges the Board's action in

assuming control of the trust. The Board's decision as to when

and how to act under the statute, including when to assume

control of a self-insured trust, implicates discretionary

determinations by the Board (see Workers' Compensation Law § 50

[5] [f], [g]; 12 NYCRR 317.20 [c]; see generally Matter of Aides

At Home, Inc. v State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd., 76 AD3d

727, 728 [2010]). For claimant to succeed in its claim, it would

have to convince the Court of Claims that the Board's action – in

essence if not in actuality – should be annulled (see Guy v State

of New York, 18 AD3d 936, 937 [2005]), and this is the type of

analysis undertaken in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Matter

of Aides At Home, Inc. v State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd.,

76 AD3d at 727). Such a result is inescapable regardless of how

claimant characterized the claim and, accordingly, we agree with

the Court of Claims that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

(see Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance

Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d at 1144; Guy v State of New York, 18 AD3d

at 937).

Garry, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court