SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1426 

CA 11-00437 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, GREEN, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

SHAWN GREEN, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(CLAIM NO. 112892.) 

 

SHAWN GREEN, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. ARNOLD OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Renee Forgensi

Minarik, J.), entered January 15, 2010. The order denied the motion

of claimant for summary judgment, granted the cross motion of

defendant for summary judgment and dismissed the claim. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant, a prisoner incarcerated at the Elmira

Correctional Facility, filed a claim that sought damages “due to

various improprieties imposed upon him via disciplinary actions.” The

Court of Claims denied claimant’s motion for summary judgment and

granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the

claim. The court determined, inter alia, that defendant’s employees

acted within the scope of their authority and followed applicable

rules, and thus were therefore entitled to absolute immunity. 

Although claimant contends on appeal that the court erred in denying

his motion, we note that defendant, as an alternative ground for

affirmance (see Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,

60 NY2d 539, 545-546), contends on appeal that the claim should have

been dismissed because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

We agree. Although defendant did not raise that contention in support

of its cross motion and thus failed to preserve it for our review (cf.

id.), we note that a question of subject matter jurisdiction may be

raised at any time (see Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d

714, 718; Moulden v White, 49 AD3d 1250, 1250-1251). 

In determining whether the Court of Claims has subject matter

jurisdiction over a claim, the initial 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” (Matter of Gross v

Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236, rearg denied 72 NY2d 1042; see Buonanotte v
-2- 1426 

CA 11-00437 

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

1142, 1144, lv denied 12 NY3d 712; Sarbro IX v State of N.Y. Off. of

Gen. Servs., 229 AD2d 910, 911). Regardless 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 (see Gross, 72 NY2d at 236;

Buonanotte, 60 AD3d at 1143-1144; Matter of Salahuddin v Connell, 53

AD3d 898, 899). 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 (see Salahuddin, 53 AD3d at 899; Lublin v

State of New York, 135 Misc 2d 419, affd 135 AD2d 1155, lv denied 71

NY2d 802; see generally Gross, 72 NY2d at 236). 

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court