has jurisdiction over tort claims brought against the State and over damages claims brought against state employees in their official capacities, but not over claims brought against state officials in their individual capacities.”). Rather, the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is “generally limited to claims for damages against the State, including suits that result from the torts of its officers and employees while acting in such capacities.” Holmes, 782 N.Y.S.2d at 573 (internal citations omitted). For that reason, courts in this Circuit have held that a suit in a forum where state employees may only be sued in their official capacities does not bar an action against those employees in their individual capacities. See, e.g., Gargiul v. Tompkins, 790 F.2d 265, 272-73 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations omitted); Pack, 348
holding that in a suit against state officials in their official capacities monetary relief unlike prospective injunctive relief is generally barred by the eleventh amendment holding that since damage claims in an article 78 proceeding may only be asserted against individuals in their official capacities the plaintiff could not have recovered damages against the education officials in their individual capacities and therefore cannot be barred by res judicata  holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to liability under  1983 holding that such claims however cannot be brought directly against the state or a state agency but only against state officials in their official capacities holding that an action brought against the state officials in their official capacities was not properly removed to federal court because the district court lacked jurisdiction