New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

CUNNINGHAM v. NEW YORK STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, #2008-038-578, Claim No. 114177, Motion No. M-74097


Synopsis


Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction granted. Judicial review of calculation of retirement service credit is properly brought in Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR Article 78.

Case Information

UID:
2008-038-578
Claimant(s):
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM
Claimant short name:
CUNNINGHAM
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
NEW YORK STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114177
Motion number(s):
M-74097
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Claimant’s attorney:
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York
By: J. Gardner Ryan, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 3, 2008
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant seeks review of a decision by the New York State Employees’ Retirement System to prorate her service credits for certain periods during which she was employed part-time. Defendant moves to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although the claim demands money damages, it is clear that the essential nature of the claim seeks review of defendant’s calculation of claimant’s service credits (see Guy v State of New York, 18 AD3d 936, 937 [3d Dept 2005]). Such a dispute is subject to judicial review only in a proceeding brought in Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR (see Matter of Cole-Hatchard v McCall, 4 AD3d 715, 715-716 [3d Dept 2004]; Marsh v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 291 AD2d 713, 714 [3d Dept 2002]; Retirement & Social Security Law § 74 [d]). The Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim “where the primary relief sought is obtainable in an article 78 proceeding, regardless of how a claimant characterizes [the] claim” (Young v State of New York, 179 Misc 2d 879, 882 [Ct Cl 1999]). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim must be granted, and it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-74097 is GRANTED and Claim No. 114177 is DISMISSED.


January 3, 2008
Albany, New York

HON. W. BROOKS DEBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers considered
:

(1) Claim No. 114177, filed September 4, 2007;

(2) Notice of Motion to Dismiss, dated October 12, 2007;

(3) Affirmation of J. Gardner Ryan, AAG, dated October 12, 2007, with exhibits;

(4) Correspondence in Response of Sue Cunningham, dated October 16, 2007, with exhibits.