People v. Nuernberger, 25 N.Y.2d 179 (1969)

The Family Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over any proceeding concerning acts that would constitute an assault between parent and child, even if the assault is charged as a felony in criminal court.

Summary

Defendant was convicted of assault and impairing the morals of a minor after a trial in County Court. The charges stemmed from actions against his 11-year-old daughter. The assault charge was a felony because it was alleged to have been committed with the intent to commit incest. The defendant argued that the County Court lacked jurisdiction because the Family Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over intra-family assaults. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Family Court did have exclusive original jurisdiction over the assault charge, even though it was a felony, and modified the judgment accordingly.

Facts

The defendant was indicted on charges of incest, assault in the second degree, and impairing the morals of a minor. The charges arose from acts committed against his 11-year-old daughter. The assault charge was elevated to a felony because the prosecution alleged it was committed with the intent to commit incest. The case was brought directly in Erie County Court. The defendant was acquitted of incest but convicted of both assault and impairing the morals of a minor.

Procedural History

The case originated in Erie County Court. The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree and impairing the morals of a minor. The defendant appealed the conviction, arguing that the County Court lacked jurisdiction over the assault charge because the Family Court has exclusive original jurisdiction. A related appeal was filed concerning the denial of habeas corpus. The New York Court of Appeals modified the judgment, reversing the assault conviction and transferring that charge to the Family Court.

Issue(s)

Whether the County Court had jurisdiction over the assault charge, given that it involved an assault between a parent and child, when the Family Court is statutorily granted “exclusive original jurisdiction” over such matters.

Holding

No, because the Family Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over assault proceedings between parent and child, and that jurisdiction is not circumvented by charging the assault as a felony in criminal court.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on the explicit language of the Family Court Act, which grants the Family Court “exclusive original jurisdiction” over proceedings involving acts constituting an assault between parent and child. The court cited prior precedent, People v. Johnson, which held that this exclusive original jurisdiction applies to aggravated and felonious assaults within a family group. The court emphasized that this jurisdiction is subject to transfer by the Family Court itself, but it must originate there. The court stated, “If there is to be a prosecution for an assault within the enumerated family group of any degree or for any purpose, the prosecution must begin in the Family Court.” The court reasoned that the intent behind the assault (in this case, allegedly to commit incest) does not alter the jurisdictional requirement. While the court affirmed the conviction for impairing the morals of a minor, it did so because that offense was considered “a different crime” from assault and disorderly conduct. The dissenting judges argued that impairing the morals of a child should also be considered within the Family Court’s exclusive jurisdiction, viewing it as an assault upon the child’s spirit, referencing amendments to the Family Court Act broadening the definition of assault. The dissent further argued that even if impairing morals wasn’t always an assault, the inextricable relation between the charges would still mandate Family Court jurisdiction, citing People v. Fowlkes.