SCHNEIDERMAN v. BRAND (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered on or about October 14, 2021, which denied defendants’ motion for damages and other relief arising from a settlement agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court denied defendants’ motion on two procedural grounds:  the relief sought had to be brought through a pleading, rather than by motion, and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because the claim was one for damages against the State of New York. Defendants waived any challenge to these holdings by failing to raise them in their initial brief on appeal (see Becker–Manning, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Utica, 114 A.D.3d 1143, 1143–1144, 980 N.Y.S.2d 651 [4th Dept. 2014];  see also Mehmet v. Add2net, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 437, 438, 886 N.Y.S.2d 397 [1st Dept. 2009]).

Were we to reach the issues, we would find the court was correct that relief of this type, and any type of relief in a closed action, must be brought through a pleading (see Rubin v. Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, 151 A.D.3d 603, 604, 58 N.Y.S.3d 320 [1st Dept. 2017]).  Furthermore, where, as here, the gravamen of the relief sought is money damages from the State, subject matter jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Court of Claims (see Jackson v. State of New York, 139 A.D.3d 1293, 1294, 32 N.Y.S.3d 372 [3d Dept. 2016)].  Nor, contrary to defendants’ suggestion, can the agreement of the parties confer subject matter jurisdiction (see Caffrey v. North Arrow Abstract & Settlement Servs., Inc., 160 A.D.3d 121, 133, 73 N.Y.S.3d 70 [2d Dept. 2018]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.