New York Law Review

Tag: concurrent jurisdiction

  • People v. Correa, 15 N.Y.3d 213 (2010): Supreme Court’s Concurrent Jurisdiction Over Misdemeanor Offenses

    15 N.Y.3d 213 (2010)

    The Supreme Court of New York possesses concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over the trial of unindicted misdemeanor offenses.

    Summary

    Defendant appealed her conviction for attempted aggravated harassment, arguing the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because she was prosecuted via misdemeanor information instead of an indictment or superior court information (SCI). The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that even if the case was tried in Supreme Court, that court possesses concurrent jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses. The Court also found that the defendant’s claim regarding the transfer of her case to Supreme Court was akin to an improper venue claim, which was waived by failing to raise it at trial, and that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally sufficient.

    Facts

    Defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree after a nonjury trial. She appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the case was prosecuted via a misdemeanor information, not an indictment or superior court information (SCI).

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted in the trial court. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction in a divided decision. One of the Appellate Division dissenters granted the defendant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the Supreme Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a misdemeanor case prosecuted on a misdemeanor information, absent an indictment or superior court information?
    2. Whether the transfer of the defendant’s case from the New York City Criminal Court to the Supreme Court was impermissible because court rules were not in effect on the date of her conviction?
    3. Whether the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally sufficient?

    Holding

    1. No, because the Supreme Court possesses concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over the trial of unindicted misdemeanor offenses.
    2. No, because the alleged transfer error is the equivalent of an improper venue claim, which is waived if not timely raised.
    3. No, because the defendant’s challenge to the jurisdictional sufficiency of the accusatory instrument lacks merit.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that even assuming the defendant’s case was tried in Supreme Court, she was not entitled to reversal on jurisdictional grounds. The Court relied on the principle that Supreme Court possesses concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over the trial of unindicted misdemeanor offenses. The court reasoned that the transfer of the case, even if improper, was analogous to a venue issue, not a jurisdictional one, and therefore was waived because the defendant did not object at trial.

    The Court emphasized that “venue issues—which relate only to the proper place of trial, rather than to the power of the court to hear and determine the case—are waivable.” Because the defendant failed to object to the transfer in the trial court, the Court of Appeals declined to consider the claim. Finally, the Court briefly dismissed the defendant’s challenge to the jurisdictional sufficiency of the accusatory instrument, finding it without merit.

  • Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1982): Concurrent Jurisdiction of Child Abuse Proceedings

    Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1982)

    New York State’s Supreme Court possesses concurrent jurisdiction with the Family Court over child abuse proceedings, and the decision to exercise that jurisdiction within a matrimonial action is discretionary.

    Summary

    This case addresses the concurrent jurisdiction of the New York State Supreme Court and Family Court in child abuse proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over such proceedings is unaffected by the Family Court Act’s grant of “exclusive original jurisdiction” to Family Court. The crucial question is whether the Supreme Court abused its discretion by exercising its concurrent jurisdiction, specifically by consolidating a matrimonial action with a child abuse/neglect proceeding. The Court found no abuse of discretion, considering the advanced stage of the matrimonial action and related hearings before the Family Court proceeding began.

    Facts

    A matrimonial action was commenced in Supreme Court. An extensive pendente lite hearing regarding child custody was conducted. Psychiatric examinations of the parties were ordered and completed. Subsequently, a separate abuse/neglect proceeding involving the same family was initiated in Family Court.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court ordered the consolidation of the matrimonial action and the abuse/neglect proceeding. An appeal was taken, challenging the Supreme Court’s exercise of jurisdiction and the Family Court’s failure to conduct a dispositional hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s order. The case then reached the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law by exercising its concurrent jurisdiction over the abuse/neglect proceeding, given the existing matrimonial action?
    2. Whether the Family Court abused its discretion as a matter of law in failing to conduct a dispositional hearing under Family Court Act § 1047, considering the consolidated proceedings?

    Holding

    1. No, because the matrimonial action was already significantly underway, including extensive hearings and psychiatric evaluations, before the commencement of the Family Court proceeding.
    2. No, because considering the circumstances in these consolidated proceedings, the Family Court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the principle that the Supreme Court retains concurrent jurisdiction over child abuse proceedings, notwithstanding the Family Court’s “exclusive original jurisdiction.” The court emphasized that the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction is discretionary, citing Kagen v. Kagen, 21 N.Y.2d 532, 538. The critical factor was the progress of the matrimonial action prior to the Family Court proceeding. The Court found that because a pendente lite hearing on child custody had been held, and psychiatric examinations had been ordered and completed, the Supreme Court’s decision to consolidate the proceedings was not an abuse of discretion under CPLR 602(b). Regarding the dispositional hearing, the Court deferred to the Family Court’s discretion in the consolidated proceedings, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court stated that Supreme Court’s concurrent jurisdiction over child abuse proceedings is unaffected by the grant of “exclusive original jurisdiction” to Family Court over such proceedings. In exercising its discretion, the court considered judicial economy and avoiding duplicative proceedings, furthering the best interests of the child by resolving all related issues in a single forum with existing familiarity. The court also stated “The question remains, however, whether Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law in exercising its concurrent jurisdiction in the instant case”.