In Matter of the Goldstein Enterprises, Inc. v. State Insurance Fund (Supreme Court, Albany County, Index No. 3616-00, decided Jan. 16, 2001, Keegan, J.) a member of another group insured by the Fund commenced an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Fund's decision refusing to issue a refund and to pay a dividend to which the insured claimed entitlement under the policy endorsement. Matter of Goldstein was decided after the parties to the instant motion submitted their papers, and the petition was dismissed on a number of grounds, including lack of ripeness. It is noteworthy, however, that the State did not argue, and Supreme Court did not question, Supreme Court's jurisdiction to entertain the matter or the propriety of an Article 78 proceeding to assert the challenge and, if successful, to obtain a monetary award. In short, existing case law does not provide a reliable guide by which to determine if a monetary claim such as the one presented by these claimants is "incidental" to equitable relief - annulment and recomputation of the Fund's audit - that is appropriately obtained by way of an Article 78 proceeding.