Talk:New York Supreme Court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject New York (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thanks for fixing my NYC-centrism (my father used to work in the city courts, so that's what I know best). Vicki Rosenzweig 02:09 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

NYC is what I know best too, but I try hard not to offend the people from the rest of the state. Cjmnyc 17:16 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Possible suggestions for new content:

  • Structural reform proposals for the New York State trial courts (or does that go in a new page for New York Unified Court System?);
  • The history of the court;
  • The longrunning but supposedly "temporary" system of unelected "acting Supreme Court justices";
  • Add a page for the Appellate Division;
  • Add a cross reference to something about the relationship between federal and state courts.


Cjmnyc 17:16 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to see an explaination of why NY uses the term "Supreme Court" whereas the rest of the country uses "Superior Court". Branciforte3241 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, It does make a certain sense. The supreme court is the highest court of general juridsidiction so it is "supreme" in that sense. The appellate divisions and the court of appeals are higher in the sense that they can review decisions of the supreme court on appeal, but they are not courts of general jurisdiction. As for the reason for the discrepancy, let me see if I can find something out through Lexis.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Outside the US, the Supreme Court (Pitcairn) is also a "supreme" court of first instance. Apokrif 13:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference to the Appellate Division[edit]

the reference to the Appellate Division is not entirely accurate. unless there is a conflict between or among the four departments, the decision of one department is binding on all lower courts of New York State. Streamless 20:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If this is the case, then the Appellate Division entry is wrong where it says, assuming no prior conflict among departments, a Department is not bound by another Department's decisions, and they are merely "pursuasive." Who's going to fix it. I'm not licensed in NY?????--Quantico781 06:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

no, that's right--one department's decision isn't bound by another department. one department's decision is binding on all lower courts until the departments disagree. if you type in "administrative convenience" and "appellate division" in a new york state case law database in westlaw or lexis, you'll find the case that states this. Streamless 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Only three areas?[edit]

"The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over three areas: matrimonial actions (such as for divorce or annulment), declaratory judgments, and so-called Article 78 actions" What about general equity actions, excepting those areas where the lower courts only have been granted limited equitable jurisidiction by statute (such as eviction, ejection and other L+T issues, as specifically carved out in the civil court act)? The lower courts cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over most causes of action sounded directly in equity. Example: You can't sue for specific performance/adverse possession/partition and sale, in the civil or county courts. --Fuhghettaboutit 06:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

you're correct that you wouldn't be able to sue for adverse possession in lower civil court, as such an action would necessarily involve a determination with respect to title to land (jurisdiction over which is exclusively vested in the supreme court), but i think that if the value of a contracted service is less than $25,000, you could sue for specific performance in lower civil. do you have any citation that states otherwise? Streamless 14:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, here's an excerpt of a motion I wrote:

25. The Housing Part of the Civil Court derives its authority from the N.Y. City Civil Court Act, §110. Under that section, the court is:
...devoted to actions and proceedings involving the enforcement
of state and local laws for the establishment and maintenance
of housing standards...
26. Although CCA §110 goes on to define nine distinct areas of enforcement the housing Part is empowered to oversee, all are specific to housing code enforcement, and would not be applicable to the ownership issues presented in the case at bar.
27. Moreover, the jurisdictional powers of the Civil Court entire are limited to:
...actions and proceedings for the recovery of money, actions
and proceedings for the recovery of chattels and actions and
proceedings for the foreclosure of liens on personal property where
the amount sought to be recovered or the value of the property
does not exceed $25,000. CCA §202.
28. Thus, numerous courts have stated that the civil court and its predecessor lack, or have strictly limited equitable power. See, e.g., Acker v. Hanioti, 276 A.D. 78 (1st Dept, 1949); Goldstein v. Stephens, 118 Misc. 2d 614 (App. Term, 1st Dept, 1983); European-American Banking Corp. v. Chock Full O'Nuts Corp., 109 Misc. 2d 615 (App. Term, 1st Dept, 1981); Arol Development Corp. v. Goodie Brand Packing Corp., 83 Misc. 2d 477 (Civ. Ct., Bronx Co., 1975).
29. Housing & Development Administration v. Community Housing Impr., 90 Misc. 2d 813 (App. Term, 2nd Dept, 1977) stands for the proposition that declaratory judgments and Article 78 relief are outside the bounds of civil court jurisdiction, stating “by the clear terms of the CPLR, jurisdiction to grant either a declaratory judgment or article 78 relief is limited solely to the Supreme Court.”
30. So too, in Scott v. Dale Carpet Cleaning, Inc., 120 Misc. 2d 118 (Civ. Ct., NY Co., 1983) the court held that the civil court lacked the power to entertain a cause of action for specific performance. Similarly, in Smith v. Salomon, 184 A.D. 544 (2nd Dept. 1918) and Broder v. Amhurst Fabrics, Inc., 105 N.Y.S.2d 154 (App. Term, 1st Dept, 1951) the courts found that the civil court lacked power to hear actions for rescission of contract.
31. Finally, CCA §203(f) specifically states that the civil court lacks jurisdiction to rescind a deed “where the assessed valuation of the property...exceed[s] $25,000...” This court may take judicial notice that according to the New York City Tax Department final assessment roll for the year 2004-2005, annexed hereto at Exhibit “A”, the subject property in this action has an estimated market value of $532,125.

Maybe the section at issue should be modified to something like (changes boldfaced) : "By statute, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over three areas: matrimonial actions (such as for divorce or annulment), declaratory judgments, and so-called Article 78 actions," but effectively has exclusive jurisdication over other areas sounding in equity such as... which have been defined by applicable caselaw as unsuitable for adjudication by the lower courts. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Plagarized section[edit]

The portion of the article entitled "History and Evolution of the Court" is a direct copy of this webpage: Even the pictures used in this portion of the article, and the format of the page is a direct copy. While it seems that this addition was a good-faith edit by Drlowell, it is in violation of Wikipedia policy. It would not be a violation of the policy if the content of this section is rewritten in the author's own words. Please refer to Wikipedia:Copyright and Plagarism. -Taco325i 15:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

62 Supreme Courts in New York?[edit]

The article says, that "There is a supreme court in each of New York State's 62 counties". This only means, that the New York Supreme Court runs 62 sections/branches/offices in the State of New York, but there are not 62 separate courts, right? Henning Blatt (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)