You are here: / / COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL...

COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CLAIM.

The Third Department determined a prisoner's lawsuit alleging false imprisonment based upon mistakes in sentencing was properly dismissed because the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction:

“While jurisdiction reposes in the Court of Claims where the essential nature of the claim against defendant is to recover money, it does not lie where monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim” … . Here, we agree with the Court of Claims that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction on claimant's false imprisonment claim, inasmuch as his primary argument is that he is currently being confined unlawfully due to errors in resentencing and that any claim for related damages is incidental to this primary argument. Therefore, the claim for false imprisonment was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Jackson v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03938, 3rd Dept 5-19-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CLAIM)/COURT OF CLAIMS (COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CLAIM)

You might also like
Fraud Cause of Action Seeking Only Lost Profits as Damages Must Be Dismissed
Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Hospital—Criteria for Hospital Liability for Treatment by a Non-Employee Explained
CLAIMANT PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE A 35% LOSS OF WAGE EARNING CAPACITY DESPITE HIS HAVING RETURNED TO WORK FULL-TIME.
OIL-SPILL DAMAGES INVESTIGATOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY OUTREACH WORKER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.
CARRIER’S APPLICATION TO REOPEN CLAIM WAS MADE WITHOUT REASONABLE GROUNDS, PENALTY PROPERLY IMPOSED.
PARENTS HAD STANDING TO BRING A MANDAMUS ACTION SEEKING A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN, HOWEVER MANDAMUS LIES ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS WHICH ARE MANDATORY, NOT THE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS SOUGHT BY THE PETITION HERE (THIRD DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT,... DENIAL, WITHOUT A HEARING, OF DEFENSE MOTION TO PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ON...