Calendar Date: April 25, 2017
Carlton Walker, Otisville, appellant pro se.
T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of
counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, J.P., Lynch, Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
from an order of the Court of Claims (Hard, J.), entered June
8, 2016, which, among other things, granted defendant's
motion to dismiss the claim.
1985, claimant was convicted following a jury trial of a
number of crimes, the most serious of which was murder in the
second degree, and he was sentenced to an aggregate term of
25 years to life in prison. His conviction was later affirmed
on appeal (People v Walker, 143 A.D.2d 784');">143 A.D.2d 784 ,
lvs denied 73 N.Y.2d 984, 1023 ). In 1994 and
1996, he made applications to the Appellate Division, Second
Department for a writ of error coram nobis, but his
applications were denied (People v Walker, 226
A.D.2d 749 , appeal dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 887');">88 N.Y.2d 887
, cert denied 519 U.S. 844');">519 U.S. 844 ; People
v Walker, 205 A.D.2d 716');">205 A.D.2d 716 , appeal
dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 834');">84 N.Y.2d 834 ). In 2014, he made a
third such application, which the Second Department treated
as a motion to reargue his earlier applications and then
denied . Claimant sought leave to appeal this
order to the Court of Appeals, but his application was
dismissed and his motion to reargue the leave application was
December 2014, claimant filed a claim against defendant,
emanating from his criminal conviction and the denial of his
coram nobis applications, seeking damages in the amount of
$300, 000, 000. Defendant moved to dismiss the claim for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a cause
of action. Claimant, in turn, filed an amended claim and
defendant made a second motion to dismiss. The Court of
Claims, among other things, granted defendant's initial
motion and dismissed the claim. Claimant now appeals.
causes of action alleged in the claim stem from
claimant's assertion of innocence and purported
deficiencies in the processing of his coram nobis
applications and application for leave to appeal to the Court
of Appeals, as well as alleged errors committed by certain
judges, which he maintains deprived him of his constitutional
rights. Claimant's request for monetary damages is
clearly incidental, as the claim does not allege the manner
in which such damages are related to the alleged
constitutional violations (see Matter of Gross v
Perales, 72 N.Y.2d 231, 236 ; Green v State of
New York, 90 A.D.3d 1577, 1578 , lv
denied 18 N.Y.3d 901');">18 N.Y.3d 901 ; Madura v State of New
York, 12 A.D.3d 759, 760 , lv denied 4
N.Y.3d 704 ). Accordingly, the Court of Claims is
without subject matter jurisdiction to decide the claim
(see Jackson v State of New York, 139 A.D.3d 1293,
1294 ; Matter of Salahuddin v Connell, 53
A.D.3d 898, 899 ). Moreover, although claimant has
asserted a cause of action for unjust conviction under Court
of Claims Act § 8-b, he has not provided documentary
evidence establishing the necessary elements, i.e., that he
was pardoned or that his conviction was reversed, as required
by the statute (see Court of Claims Act § 8-b
 [b]). Furthermore, to the extent that claimant has
asserted causes of action against individual judges arising
from the performance of their official duties, these causes
of action are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity
(see Best v State of New York, 116 A.D.3d 1198, 1199
; Harley v State of New York, 186 A.D.2d 324,
324-325 , appeal dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 781');">81 N.Y.2d 781
). We have considered claimant's remaining
contentions and find them to be unpersuasive. In view of the
foregoing, the claim was properly dismissed.
J.P., Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.
that the order is affirmed, without costs.
 His subsequent motion for reargument with
respect to this ruling was also ...