Hong Mai v City of New York

[*1] Hong Mai v City of New York 2005 NYSlipOp 51179(U) Decided on July 21, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 21, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
2004-1015 Q C

Hong Mai, Appellant,

against

City of New York, Respondent.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County (V. Brathwaite Nelson, J.), entered September 14, 2004, following a non-jury trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this action characterized as for "property damage," plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to money received by the City of New York following the impoundment and sale of her car to satisfy a Parking Violations Bureau judgment of $778.60 representing unpaid parking tickets.

The court below properly dismissed the action. The Civil Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review a determination of the Parking Violations Bureau. Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 19-208 and 19-209 provide for an administrative review process (which plaintiff did not follow, thus failing, in addition, to exhaust administrative remedies) and for judicial review through an article 78 proceeding, with jurisdiction lying in the Supreme Court. The Civil Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that subject matter jurisdiction provided by law (see NY Const, art VI, § 15), and the CCA does not provide for review of Parking Violations Bureau administrative determinations or for the hearing of matters in the nature of article 78 proceedings (see generally CCA 201-213; Matter of Voccola v [*2]Shilling, 88 Misc 2d 103 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1976], affd 57 AD2d 931 [1977]). To the extent that
plaintiff's action sought to recover proceeds from the sale of her vehicle at auction, she failed to establish that there were any excess funds available to which she was entitled, following satisfaction of all liens thereon.
Decision Date: July 21, 2005