1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

EVEN THE CIVIL COURT HAS ITS LIMITS

The powers of New York's various courts are defined by statute and our state's Constitution. And, in some instances, this authority is severely limited or circumscribed.
By way of example, a litigant filing a case in the New York City Civil Court may not assert a claim in excess of $25,000. (The exceptions are countersuits--or counterclaims--asserted in that forum, and proceedings brought in the Civil Court's Landlord-Tenant Parts. No dollar limitations apply in those instances and the sums sought to be recovered may be of any amount.)
When a dispute exceeds the monetary ceiling, the court is without "subject matter jurisdiction" to entertain the dispute and the matter must either be dismissed (without prejudice to the refiling of the dispute in the appropriate forum) or transferred to the correct courthouse.
In 1443 York Avenue Realty Co. v. Ronning, landlord 1443 York Avenue Realty Company sued Nancy Ronning, the guarantor of a residential lease, for monies due under that agreement. Ms. Ronning and her daughers--who were the named tenants--commenced a separate lawsuit against the owner, seeking damages for rent overcharge; a claim, when tripled, totaled $75,000.
While the facts are somewhat complicated--in that two cases were eventually combined or consolidated "for all purposes"--of import to our analysis is that the consolidation did not enable the Ronnings to maintain their $75,000 claim in the Civil Court. As the Appellate Term, First Department, observed:

A demand for treble damages, much like a demand for punitive damages, is parasitic in nature and does not constitute a separate cause of action distinct from the substantive cause upon which it is grounded ... Inasmuch as the rent overcharge complaint pleaded not separate, distinct claims, but a single cause of action in excess of the court's $25,000 monetary ceiling...the court was without subject matter jurisdiction over the matter ... In such circumstances, the proper course was to transfer the consolidated actions to Supreme Court pursuant to Article VI, Section 19(f) of the New York State Constitution ....
Thus, according to the AT, the Civil Court may neither play host to costly parasitic claims nor permit litigants to impermissibly leech that forum's judicial resources.
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision in 1443 York Avenue Realty Co. v. Ronning, please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_51401.htm
For a copy of the New York State Constitution, please click on the following link:
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/pdfs/cons2004.pdf

Categories: