essential nature claim in New York

2025"Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case." Gross v Perales , 72 NY2d 231 (1988).

2025The question, then, 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 [1988]) (241 Ad2d at 671).

2024"Thus, in determining the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, the threshold question is '[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is [*4]incidental to the primary claim'" ( id. , quoting Matter of Gross v Perales , 72 NY2d 231, 236 ).

2024"Thus, in determining the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, the threshold question is '[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is [*4]incidental to the primary claim'" ( id. , quoting Matter of Gross v Perales , 72 NY2d 231, 236 ).

2024The Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable relief and, to assess whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim, "the threshold question . . . is whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim" ( Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs. , 60 AD3d 1142, 1143 [3d Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; see Nasca v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. , 205 AD3d 1169 , 1169 [3d Dept 2022], lv den

2024The Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable relief and, to assess whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim, "the threshold question . . . is whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim" ( Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs. , 60 AD3d 1142, 1143 [3d Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; see Nasca v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. , 205 AD3d 1169, 1169 [3d Dept 2022], lv deni

2012In that regard, it must first be determined if “the essential nature of the claim is to recover money” (Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]; see City of New York v State of New York, 46 AD3d at 1168 ).

2012In that regard, it must first be determined if “the essential nature of the claim is to recover money” (Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]; see City of New York v State of New York, 46 AD3d at 1168 ).

2008As that court has ‘no jurisdiction to grant strictly equitable relief’ (Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413, 416 [1954]), but may grant incidental equitable relief so long as the primary claim seeks to recover money damages in appropriation, contract or tort cases (see Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670, 671 [1997]), ‘the threshold 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” ’ (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [2004], Iv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], quoting Mat

2008As that court has ‘no jurisdiction to grant strictly equitable relief (Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413, 416 [1954]), but may grant incidental equitable relief so long as the primary claim seeks to recover money damages in appropriation, contract or tort cases (see Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670, 671 [1997]), ‘the threshold 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” ’ (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], quoting Matt

2022"To determine if the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction, the threshold question is whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim" ( Hoffman v State of New York , 42 AD3d 641, 642 [2007] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]).

2008Here, our inquiry distills to “ £[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim’ ” (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], quoting Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]; see Hoffman v State of New York, 42 AD3d 641, 642 [2007]).

2008As that court has ‘no jurisdiction to grant strictly equitable relief’ (Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413, 416 [1954]), but may grant incidental equitable relief so long as the primary claim seeks to recover money damages in appropriation, contract or tort cases (see Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670, 671 [1997]), ‘the threshold 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” ’ (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [2004], Iv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], quoting Mat

2008As that court has ‘no jurisdiction to grant strictly equitable relief (Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413, 416 [1954]), but may grant incidental equitable relief so long as the primary claim seeks to recover money damages in appropriation, contract or tort cases (see Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670, 671 [1997]), ‘the threshold 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” ’ (Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], quoting Matt

2024The Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable relief and, to assess whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim, "the threshold question . . . is whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim" ( Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs. , 60 AD3d 1142, 1143 [3d Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; see Nasca v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. , 205 AD3d 1169 , 1169 [3d Dept 2022], lv den

2024The Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to grant equitable relief and, to assess whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim, "the threshold question . . . is whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim" ( Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs. , 60 AD3d 1142, 1143 [3d Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; see Nasca v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. , 205 AD3d 1169, 1169 [3d Dept 2022], lv deni

2016“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” (Guy v State of New York, 18 AD3d 936, 937 [2005] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of McCullough v State of New York, 278 AD2d 709, 709 [2000]).

2008Although “jurisdiction reposes in the Court of Claims where the essential nature of the claim [against the state] is to recover money, [it does not lie] where monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim” (Guy v State of New York, 18 AD3d 936, 937 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2015Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the claims asserted in the first, second, and eighth causes of action were not incidental to the plaintiffs’ CPLR article 78 challenges to the Resolution and the special tax assessment (see generally Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 115 AD3d 521 , 522 [2014]; cf. ABC Radio Network v State of New York Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 294 AD2d 213, 214 [2002]; Matter of Passaro v Lake George Park Commn., 288 AD2d 678 , 679 n [2001]; Matter of Adams v Welch, 272 AD2d 642, 643-644 [2000]; Murphy v Capone, 191 AD2d at

2014Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the claims asserted in the first, second, third, and eighth causes of action, in which the plaintiffs sought money damages, were not incidental to the plaintiffs’ CPLR article 78 challenges to the Resolution and the special tax assessment (see generally Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 115 AD3d 521 , 522 [2014]; cf. ABC Radio Network v State of New York Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 294 AD2d 213, 214 [2002]; Matter of Passaro v Lake George Park Commn., 288 AD2d 678 , 679 n [2001]; Matter of Adams v Welch, 272

2015“Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” (id. at 236; see Murphy v Capone, 191 AD2d 683, 684 [1993]).

2014“Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” (id. at 236; see Murphy v Capone, 191 AD2d 683, 684 [1993]).

2015Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the claims asserted in the first, second, and eighth causes of action were not incidental to the plaintiffs’ CPLR article 78 challenges to the Resolution and the special tax assessment (see generally Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 115 AD3d 521 , 522 [2014]; cf. ABC Radio Network v State of New York Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 294 AD2d 213, 214 [2002]; Matter of Passaro v Lake George Park Commn., 288 AD2d 678 , 679 n [2001]; Matter of Adams v Welch, 272 AD2d 642, 643-644 [2000]; Murphy v Capone, 191 AD2d at

2014Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the claims asserted in the first, second, third, and eighth causes of action, in which the plaintiffs sought money damages, were not incidental to the plaintiffs’ CPLR article 78 challenges to the Resolution and the special tax assessment (see generally Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 115 AD3d 521 , 522 [2014]; cf. ABC Radio Network v State of New York Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 294 AD2d 213, 214 [2002]; Matter of Passaro v Lake George Park Commn., 288 AD2d 678 , 679 n [2001]; Matter of Adams v Welch, 272

2015Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the claims asserted in the first, second, and eighth causes of action were not incidental to the plaintiffs’ CPLR article 78 challenges to the Resolution and the special tax assessment (see generally Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 115 AD3d 521 , 522 [2014]; cf. ABC Radio Network v State of New York Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 294 AD2d 213, 214 [2002]; Matter of Passaro v Lake George Park Commn., 288 AD2d 678 , 679 n [2001]; Matter of Adams v Welch, 272 AD2d 642, 643-644 [2000]; Murphy v Capone, 191 AD2d at

2014Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the claims asserted in the first, second, third, and eighth causes of action, in which the plaintiffs sought money damages, were not incidental to the plaintiffs’ CPLR article 78 challenges to the Resolution and the special tax assessment (see generally Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 115 AD3d 521 , 522 [2014]; cf. ABC Radio Network v State of New York Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 294 AD2d 213, 214 [2002]; Matter of Passaro v Lake George Park Commn., 288 AD2d 678 , 679 n [2001]; Matter of Adams v Welch, 272

2023New York courts have used a two-pronged test to answer this question. ( see Buonanotte v NY State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d 1142, 1143-1144 [3d Dept 2009].) The first 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.'" ( Madura v State of New York , 12 AD3d 759, 760 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], quoting Matter of Gross v Perales , 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1998].) "The second inquiry, regardless of how a claimant categorizes a claim, is whether the claim would requi

2023New York courts have used a two-pronged test to answer this question. ( see Buonanotte v NY State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d 1142, 1143-1144 [3d Dept 2009].) The first 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.'" ( Madura v State of New York , 12 AD3d 759, 760 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005], quoting Matter of Gross v Perales , 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1998].) "The second inquiry, regardless of how a claimant categorizes a claim, is whether the claim would requi

2015“Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” (Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 , rearg denied 72 NY2d 1042 ; see generally Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 115 AD3d 521 , 522-523, lv denied 24 NY3d 911 ).

2015“Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” (Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988], rearg denied 72 NY2d 1042 [1988]; see generally Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn., 115 AD3d 521 , 522-523 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 911 [2014]).

2005Servs. v State of New York, 266 AD2d 685, 685 [1999], quoting Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]; see Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760-761 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005]; Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670, 671 [1997]; see also Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9 [2]).

2000Servs. v State of New York, 266 AD2d 685 , quoting Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 ).

1999Here, any pecuniary recovery by claimant is incidental given that the claim is essentially a challenge to the State Education Department’s determination denying claimant reimbursement, a determination claimant should have challenged by commencement of a CPLR article 78 proceeding which “Supreme Court unquestionably has * * * jurisdiction” over (Matter of Gross v Perales, supra, at 236; see, Pauk v Board of Trustees, 68 NY2d 702, 705 ).

1988Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case (see, Pauk v Board of Trustees, 68 NY2d 702, 705 ; Schaffer v Evans, supra; Matter of Schwab v Bowen, 41 NY2d 907 ).

2026The Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction ( see NY Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9) and it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review administrative determinations, even where a claimant seeks money damages and characterizes the causes of action as sounding in tort or constitutional violations; the essential nature of the claim, not the label affixed to it, controls ( see Piraino v State of New York , 231 AD3d 1457 , 1458 [3d Dept 2024]; Cumberland v State of New York , 217 AD3d 1029, 1030 [3d Dept 2023]).

2024The question then turns to whether, regardless of how a claim is categorized by a claimant, "the claim would require review of an administrative agency's determination — which the Court of Claims has no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain, as review of such determinations are properly brought only in Supreme Court in a CPLR article 78 proceeding" ( City of New York v State of New York , [*2] 46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 2007] [internal citation omitted], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; see Carver v State of New York , 79 AD3d 1393, 1394 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]; Buonanott

2024The question then turns to whether, regardless of how a claim is categorized by a claimant, "the claim would require review of an administrative agency's determination — which the Court of Claims has no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain, as review of such determinations are properly brought only in Supreme Court in a CPLR article 78 proceeding" ( City of New York v State of New York , [*2]46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 2007] [internal citation omitted], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; see Carver v State of New York , 79 AD3d 1393, 1394 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]; Buonanotte

2024The question then turns to whether, regardless of how a claim is categorized by a claimant, "the claim would require review of an administrative agency's determination — which the Court of Claims has no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain, as review of such determinations are properly brought only in Supreme Court in a CPLR article 78 proceeding" ( City of New York v State of New York , [*2] 46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 2007] [internal citation omitted], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; see Carver v State of New York , 79 AD3d 1393, 1394 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]; Buonanott

2024The question then turns to whether, regardless of how a claim is categorized by a claimant, "the claim would require review of an administrative agency's determination — which the Court of Claims has no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain, as review of such determinations are properly brought only in Supreme Court in a CPLR article 78 proceeding" ( City of New York v State of New York , [*2]46 AD3d 1168, 1169 [3d Dept 2007] [internal citation omitted], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]; see Carver v State of New York , 79 AD3d 1393, 1394 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]; Buonanotte

2024Here, although the complaint sought declaratory relief or monetary damages, the gravamen of the complaint concerned the plaintiff's challenge to the Retirement System's determination dated August 7, 2019, that her retirement as of April 21, 2019, was premature due to her erroneous placement in the 57/5 program ( see RSTA Holdings, LLC v New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation , 216 AD3d 826, 827 ; see also Feuer v State of New York , 101 AD3d 1550, 1551 ).

2023Examples of such questions reviewable by us under the jurisdictional exception abound: “[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim,” an inquiry that “is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” (see Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]); whether the accusatory instrument was valid (see People v Harper, 37 NY2d 96, 99 [1975]); whether the defendant was served with a subpoena (see Matter of Kaplan, 8 NY2d at 220 ); whether the appealing party filed its notice of appeal

2023Examples of such questions reviewable by us under the jurisdictional exception abound: “[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim,” an inquiry that “is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” (see Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]); whether the accusatory instrument was valid (see People v Harper, 37 NY2d 96, 99 [1975]); whether the defendant was served with a subpoena (see Matter of Kaplan, 8 NY2d at 220 ); whether the appealing party filed its notice of appeal

2023Examples of such questions reviewable by us under the jurisdictional exception abound: “[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim,” an inquiry that “is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” (see Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]); whether the accusatory instrument was valid (see People v Harper, 37 NY2d 96, 99 [1975]); whether the defendant was served with a subpoena (see Matter of Kaplan, 8 NY2d at 220 ); whether the appealing party filed its notice of appeal

2023Examples of such questions reviewable by us under the jurisdictional exception abound: “[w]hether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim,” an inquiry that “is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” (see Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]); whether the accusatory instrument was valid (see People v Harper, 37 NY2d 96, 99 [1975]); whether the defendant was served with a subpoena (see Matter of Kaplan, 8 NY2d at 220 ); whether the appealing party filed its notice of appeal