You are here: / / THE COURT OF CLAIMS, NOT SUPREME COURT, IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR THIS DECLARATORY...
,

THE COURT OF CLAIMS, NOT SUPREME COURT, IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR THIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proper forum for the declaratory judgment cause of action against the state was the Court of Claims. The plaintiffs had filed a breach of contract action in the Court of Claims and this declaratory judgment action is incidental to the alleged breach of contract. Therefore the Court of Claims should handle it:

The Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over claims for breach of contract against the State … . As long as the primary claim is for money damages, the Court of Claims “may [also] apply equitable considerations” and grant incidental equitable relief … . Here, because the relief sought in the complaint arises out of an alleged breach of contract, the proper forum for this action is the Court of Claims … . Rice v New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd., 2021 NY Slip Op 01669, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

You might also like
PEOPLE DID NOT PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKING AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUROR, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
ANTISUBROGATION RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY TO THE EXTENT RECOVERY EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF THE RELEVANT POLICY.
Pleading Requirements for “Goods Sold and Delivered” Cause of Action Succinctly Explained
17-Year Pre-Indictment Delay Did Not Violate Right to Speedy Trial
Abuse of Discretion to Deny Defendant’s Request for New Defense Counsel—Request Was Supported by Specific Legitimate Concerns and Was Joined by Defense Counsel
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST ALLEGED HE STRUCK A FALLEN SIGNPOST WHICH WAS OBSTRUCTING THE SIDEWALK; THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF TOWN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE REPAIR OF TOWN SIGNS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE OFFICER WHO STOPPED THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER AFTER HEARING GUN SHOTS DID NOT HAVE THE REASONABLE SUSPICION NEEDED FOR THE SEIZURE OF A VEHICLE; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Successive Photo Arrays Okay/Statement Made Voluntarily After Refusing to Waive Miranda Rights Admissible for Impeachment Purposes

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WHEN DEFENDANT BECAME DISRUPTIVE JUST BEFORE THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE BROUGHT... THE ALLEGED VICTIM IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION TESTIFIED SHE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED...