Plaintiff was formerly employed by defendant hospital as an attending physician in its department of obstetrics and gynecology; the three individual defendants were the other members of the hospital's maternal/fetal medicine group during the period of plaintiff's employment. To the extent the complaint and proposed amended complaint assert claims based on the hospital's allegedly wrongful termination of plaintiff's employment and withdrawal of his staff privileges, the motion court correctly concluded that, whether such claims seek damages or reinstatement, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain them since they had not yet been reviewed by the Public Health Council under the grievance procedure provided by Public Health Law § 2801-b ( see Indemini v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 4 NY3d 63; Gelbard v Genesee Hosp., 87 NY2d 691; Moallem v Jamaica Hosp., 264 AD2d 621). To the extent plaintiffs pleadings assert claims to recover unpaid compensation allegedly earned while he was actually employed by the hospital (i.e., prior to his termination), such claims, even if not subject to Public Health Council review, are, in both the original complaint and the proposed amended complaint, intermingled with the claims barred by Public Health Law § 2801-b rather than separately pleaded. We decline to parse plaintiffs pleadings for the purpose of severing the cognizable claims, if any, from those that are premature.