New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ALLEN v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-015-107, Claim No. 111010, Motion No. M-71560


Action based upon alleged negligence in training and supervising of Parole Board Commissioner barred by absolute immunity.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
Christopher Allen, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Michele M. Walls, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 20, 2006
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) seeking dismissal of the claim on the basis that it is barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity is granted. Although the claim is couched in the form of an action for money damages it is quintessentially one seeking review and annulment of a parole denial following a hearing held on May 10, 2005. Claimant alleges that the Parole Board Commissioners who heard and decided his case were negligently trained and supervised and reached a pre-determined conclusion to deny him parole.

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction and claimant has failed to oppose the motion.

As former Presiding Judge Susan Phillips Read observed in Cunningham v State of New York[1]:
Even if claimant's allegations that the Division of Parole erred in making its determination are taken as true, as they must be on this CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss (see, Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366; Ferran v Belawa, 241 AD2d 841), his alleged cause of action regarding his parole denial fails: discretionary determinations of the Division of Parole are cloaked with absolute immunity and cannot serve as a basis for tort liability against the State (see, Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511; Semkus v State of New York, 272 AD2d 74, lv denied 95 NY2d 761; Lublin v State of New York, supra). Although it appears to be a moot point at this juncture (see, n 2, supra), claimant's sole remedy for the allegedly erroneous parole denial was by way of a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced in Supreme Court (see, Lublin v State of New York, supra).

Similar conclusions regarding this Court's lack of jurisdiction to review Parole Board determinations were reached in Scales v State of New York, Ct Cl, December 19, 2003 [Claim No. None, Motion No. M-67126, UID # 2004-032-120] Hard, J., unreported; and Payne v State of New York, Ct Cl, November 6, 2002 [Claim No. None, Motion Nos. M-65015, M-65637], Minarik, J., unreported; see also Jackson v State of New York, 2005 WL 1252600.

Accordingly, defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.

July 20, 2006
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated April 10, 2006;
  2. Affirmation of Michele M. Walls dated April 10, 2006 with exhibit.

[1].Ct Cl, June 29, 2001 [Claim No. 103353, Motion No. M-62855, UID # 2001-001-037] PJ Read, unreported. Unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the internet at