| Blake v State of New York |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 08576 [145 AD3d 1336] |
| December 22, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| Arthur Blake, Appellant, v State of New York,Respondent. |
Arthur Blake, Coxsackie, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), enteredNovember 13, 2015, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim.
Claimant, a prison inmate, commenced this action alleging that prison staffprohibited the availability of legal material that impeded his access to the courts, deniedhim due process in challenging his improper removal from his program assignment,threatened him for filing grievances and retaliated against him by compromising hisability to file grievances through the facility mail system. Defendant answered and thenmoved to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action.The Court of Claims granted defendant's motion, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. Although the claim was characterized as one for money damages, areview of the claim discloses that claimant was essentially seeking judicial review ofactions by prison officials regarding the conditions of his confinement, including thedenial of access to legal material, the breach of confidentiality rules regarding grievancematters and interference with the filing of grievances. As alternative remedies areavailable to address these issues—including the grievance process, a CPLR article78 proceeding or an action in the nature of mandamus—such claims were properlydismissed (see Flemming v Stateof New York, 120 AD3d 848, 849 [2014]; Deleon v State of New York, 64 AD3d 840, 840-841[2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 712 [2009]; Matter of Salahuddin v Connell, 53 AD3d 898, 900[2008]). Furthermore, recognition of the state constitutional tort claims are unnecessarygiven the additional avenues of redress that are available (see Martinez v City ofSchenectady, 97 NY2d 78, 83 [2001]; Shelton v New York [*2]State Liq.Auth., 61 AD3d 1145, 1150-1151 [2009]). To the extent that claimant assertsclaims pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, the state is not a "person" in that regardand the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over such claims (see Brown v State ofNew York, 89 NY2d 172, 184-185 [1996]; Flemming v State of New York,120 AD3d at 849).
We also find no error in the Court of Claims' dismissal for failure to state a cause ofaction of the claims alleging improper removal of claimant from his prison job andassault. An inmate has "no statutory or constitutional right to a prison job" (Evans v State of New York, 57AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted],lv denied 12 NY3d 704 [2009]), and "[w]hether [claimant] ultimately will beentitled to the incidental monetary relief he seeks cannot be ascertained withoutreviewing the underlying administrative determination, which is a quintessential exampleof a dispute governed under CPLR article 78" (Matter of Salahuddin v Connell,53 AD3d at 900 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Lastly, with regard tothe claim of assault, claimant's allegations did not sufficiently set forth "physical conductplacing [him] in imminent apprehension of harmful contact" (Gould v Rempel, 99 AD3d759, 760 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see generally Guntlow vBarbera, 76 AD3d 760, 766 [2010], appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 906[2010]).
Garry, J.P., Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.