In Driscoll v. New York State Attorney General's Off. Litig. Unit (69 AD3d 515, 516, 894 NYS2d 386 [1st Dept 2010]) the Court, without elaboration, stated: "The motion court correctly denied claimant's motion for a default judgment as contrary to Court of Claims Act 12 (1)." No further discussion or mention of section 12 (1), or analysis of its meaning or discussion of its application, is made. In Driscoll (at 516), the Appellate Division modified, on the law, a decision of the Court of Claims (which had denied claimant's motion for a default judgment), and dismissed the underlying claim for the Court of Claims lack of subject matter jurisdiction: "The underlying claim, inter alia, does not comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act 11 (b) (see Kolnacki v. State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 280, 864 NE2d 611, 832 NYS2d 481 2007; Lepkowski v. State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 206-207, 802 NE2d 1094, 770 NYS2d 696 2003) and seeks judicial review by the Court of Claims of claimant's divorce proceedings (see Court of Claims Act 9 2). Hence, such dismissal is warranted."