Yung v. County of Nassau, 79 N.Y.2d 897 (1992)

When the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) conflicts with a pre-existing local statute regarding procedure, the CPLR, as the later general statute, supersedes the local statute in courts of general jurisdiction like the Supreme Court.

Summary

In a wrongful death action against Nassau County, the plaintiff served the County Clerk as per CPLR 311(4), while the county argued service should have been on the County Executive or Attorney as per the Nassau County Administrative Code. The lower courts dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding the local law controlling. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the CPLR, intended to standardize civil practice statewide, takes precedence over the pre-existing, conflicting local statute in the Supreme Court. This promotes uniformity and predictability in procedural rules.

Facts

Ling Ling Yung, as administratrix of Man Kwong Yung’s estate, sued Nassau County for wrongful death. Yung served the summons and complaint on the County Clerk. Nassau County Administrative Code § 11-4.0 required service on the County Executive or Attorney. The County moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing improper service.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court granted Nassau County’s motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, citing prior precedent. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether its order was properly made to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether CPLR 311(4), a general statute governing service of process on a county, supersedes Nassau County Administrative Code § 11-4.0, a local statute specifying service on the County Executive or Attorney, in an action brought in the Supreme Court.

Holding

Yes, because the CPLR, as a later and comprehensive statute designed to standardize civil practice throughout the state, takes precedence over conflicting, pre-existing local laws in courts of general jurisdiction like the Supreme Court.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that a general statute repeals conflicting special or local acts when the legislature intends to establish a uniform system. The CPLR aimed to standardize civil practice statewide. While CPLR 101 acknowledges exceptions for inconsistent statutes, this refers to specialized practice in lower courts with limited jurisdiction, not to allow localities to opt-out of CPLR rules for actions in Supreme Court. The court emphasized the legislative intent behind the CPLR was to regularize procedure and eliminate anomalies, except in specific instances involving courts with traditionally narrower jurisdiction and specialized rules. To allow the County to impose more stringent service of process requirements would undermine the uniformity and compromise the predictability of the CPLR. The court stated, “[A] general statute will repeal special or local acts without expressly naming them, where they are inconsistent with it, and where it can be seen from the whole enactment that it was the intention of the legislature to sweep away all local peculiarities thus sanctioned by special acts, and to establish one uniform system.” The court further elaborated that CPLR 101 applies to the procedure of individual courts as described in their court acts, not to create exceptions within the Supreme Court based on local laws. Supreme Court, Nassau County, is a court of general jurisdiction, not a special court of limited jurisdiction.