26 N.Y.3d 715 (2016)
The proper venue for an Article 78 proceeding against a judge who serves in multiple capacities is determined by the capacity in which the judge was acting when the challenged action was taken.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed the proper venue for an Article 78 proceeding brought by the Tonawanda Seneca Nation against a County Court and Surrogate’s Court Judge, Robert Noonan. The Nation sought to prevent Judge Noonan from exercising jurisdiction over tribal lands in a probate matter. The court held that because the challenge was to actions taken by Judge Noonan in his capacity as Surrogate’s Court Judge, the action should have been commenced in the Supreme Court, not the Appellate Division. The court reasoned that when a judge serves in multiple capacities, the venue is determined by the role the judge was fulfilling when taking the action being challenged.
Facts
The Tonawanda Seneca Nation initiated an Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division against Judge Robert Noonan, the County Court and Surrogate’s Court Judge for Genesee County. The proceeding challenged Judge Noonan’s jurisdiction over tribal lands in a probate matter. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition, finding the proceeding should have been brought in the Supreme Court. Judge Noonan was acting as Surrogate regarding the probate of the will in question.
Procedural History
The Nation commenced an Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition, holding it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
1. Whether an Article 78 proceeding against a judge who serves in multiple judicial capacities should be commenced in the Appellate Division when the challenge is based on the judge’s actions as a Surrogate Court Judge and a County Court Judge?
Holding
1. No, because the judge was acting in his capacity as a Surrogate’s Court Judge, the proceeding should have been brought in Supreme Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals determined the proper venue for an Article 78 proceeding against a multi-bench judge by considering the capacity in which the judge was acting when the challenged action occurred. The court cited CPLR 506(b)(1), which specifies venues for Article 78 proceedings against certain judicial officials, and found it did not apply when the judge was acting as a Surrogate. The court distinguished the case from Matter of B. T. Prods. v Barr, where a County Court Judge’s actions were considered under his role as a local criminal court. The court explained that Judge Noonan’s actions in the probate matter were solely within his authority as a Surrogate. The court referenced the legislative history of CPLR 506(b)(1), noting the concern about having judges whose principal duties are civil review the actions of colleagues whose duties are primarily criminal, which was not applicable here. The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, concluding the Appellate Division lacked jurisdiction.
Practical Implications
This case clarifies the venue for Article 78 proceedings in New York when a judge serves in multiple capacities. Attorneys must carefully consider the specific capacity in which a judge acted when determining the proper court for filing an Article 78 petition. This decision emphasizes that the nature of the challenged action, not the judge’s overall position, dictates venue. Failure to file in the correct venue could result in dismissal of the petition, as happened here. The case also helps inform the application of CPLR 506(b)(1) and highlights the importance of understanding the judicial capacity in which an action is taken.