69 N.Y.2d 310 (1987)
The New York Court of Appeals may decline to answer certified questions from a federal court when the same questions are currently under consideration in the New York State court system.
Summary
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions of New York law to the New York Court of Appeals. However, the New York Court of Appeals declined to answer the certified questions because those very questions were already before the New York State court system in an ongoing case, McDougald v. Garber. The Court of Appeals reasoned that allowing the normal state court process to proceed, including deliberation and writing by the intermediate appellate court, was preferable for resolving significant state law issues.
Facts
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sought clarification on two specific questions of New York law within a Federal Tort Claims Act case.
The questions related to whether “loss of enjoyment of life” is a separately compensable item of damages and whether cognitive awareness is required to recover for such a loss.
At the time the Second Circuit certified the questions, these same issues were actively being litigated in the New York State court system in the case of McDougald v. Garber.
Procedural History
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals.
The New York Court of Appeals declined to accept the certified questions.
Issue(s)
Whether the New York Court of Appeals should answer certified questions from a federal court when the identical questions are already being litigated in the New York State court system, with a decision pending before the intermediate appellate court.
Holding
No, because allowing the state court system to resolve the issue through its normal process, including intermediate appellate review, is preferable for resolving significant state law issues.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the value of the certification process in promoting cooperative judicial federalism and allowing the court to declare state law in non-state actions.
However, the court emphasized that answering the certified questions would interfere with the ongoing state court proceedings in McDougald v. Garber, where the same issues were being actively litigated.
The court reasoned that it was preferable to secure the benefit of the normal state court process, including the considered deliberation and writing of the intermediate appellate court, in resolving these significant state law issues.
The Court noted that responding to specific questions from the federal court, rather than deciding a case fully before it for review, would affect the ordinary state procedure already in progress.
The court stated, “In the circumstances, it is unquestionably preferable in the resolution of significant State law issues to secure the benefit afforded by our normal process — the considered deliberation and writing of our intermediate appellate court in a pending litigation.”