Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT  (Read 510 times)

wanda373

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« on: February 03, 2006, 11:55:43 PM »
CAN NY SUPREME COURT HEAR DIVORCE CASES involving a 2 million dollars property settlement that the palntiff is seeking? if the Def is from another country and plantiff only lived in ny 5 months??



J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2006, 12:39:39 AM »
I don't see why not.  Most state trial courts have general jurisdiction; most any kind of case can be heard there (there are some few exceptions, such as copyright suits).  It sounds not that much different from a normal divorce case.  If your question pertains to diversity jurisdiction, then the proper question is not whether the state court can hear it, but whether the federal courts can: unlike the state courts, they have only limited jurisdiction. 

Just from looking at the facts you've given: the damages look pretty solidly over $75,000.  It also looks as though diversity is present under 1332(a)(2) (you have a citizen of a state and an alien, who can sue in federal court under alien jurisdiction).  However, the Def. might be able to argue lack of diversity, if he has obtained permanent residence in the US and is domiciled in the same state as the plaintiff (maybe NY).  The issue of domicile depends, of course, on whether either party possesses the subjective intention to remain in NY indefinitely.
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein

wanda373

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2006, 09:04:31 AM »
So we agree that the NY supreme Court is a state court not a federal court?. And the Procedural law applied would be state, because that is where the judge resides, and they would use the statute of limitations based on ny state divorce cases?

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2006, 11:05:51 AM »
It is a state court; if it is brought in state court, your case will be governed by the state's law (including the state of limitations), and the state's own rules of civil procedure.
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein

John Galt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2006, 12:08:47 PM »
If the defendant is from another counrty you would still have a personal jurisdiction problem in NY if the Defendant has not established sufficient minimum contacts with NY.

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2006, 12:54:23 PM »
If the defendant is from another counrty you would still have a personal jurisdiction problem in NY if the Defendant has not established sufficient minimum contacts with NY.

I can't comment on this one because we haven't yet gotten to personal jurisdiction.  Would you agree that there doesn't appear to be a subject-matter problem, though?
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein

John Galt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2006, 09:32:30 PM »
If the defendant is from another counrty you would still have a personal jurisdiction problem in NY if the Defendant has not established sufficient minimum contacts with NY.

I can't comment on this one because we haven't yet gotten to personal jurisdiction.  Would you agree that there doesn't appear to be a subject-matter problem, though?

Most def. I would only add, since we are talking hypotheticals,  if the claim does satisfy diversity jusidiction but was nonetheless brought by the plaintiff in state court, the defendant could remove the case to federal court.

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2006, 10:12:13 PM »
Yep.  It doesn't apply to this fact pattern, but I would only quibble with you on this point: a case otherwise satifying diversity jurisdiction under 1332 isn't always removable.  First off, the case couldn't be removed if it was filed in the same state in which the defendant is domiciled, even if there is complete diversity between the parties.  Second, no case can be removed if it's been in state court for a year or longer; so here, it might be possible to prevent removal if the plaintiff is able to run out the clock in some way (say by naming a diversity destroying co-defendant, only to settle with him one year and one day from the time of filing in state court).

We're learning all this strategic stuff in procedure right now.  It really is fascinating.  "Listen, my pupils, and listen well: today we will learn how to DESTROY our enemies (or at least their diversity jurisdiction claims)!  MWAHAHAHAHA!!!"
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein

wanda373

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2006, 11:13:37 PM »
If there was a contract, and the contract had a forum selection clause, but the crime involved gross negligence, which is a tort.. What law would apply, contract or tort?

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2006, 11:25:18 PM »
Without knowing more specific details, I would guess you could plead both theories of recovery (as alternatives?) to the court in the complaint; the court would normally decide the case based on how it is pleaded (i.e., if the parties frame it as a contract issue, the court would use contract doctrine, if a tort, then tort law).  There might be many cases where more than one theory might arguably fit, e.g., products liability vs. breach of warranty. 

I'm not sure at all.  Anyone else?  ???
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein