Kagen v. Kagen
289 N.Y.S.2d 195, 236 N.E.2d 475, 21 N.Y.2d 532 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 1962 amendment to the New York Constitution expanded the general original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to include concurrent jurisdiction over any statutory cause of action not recognized at common law, even if the legislature purports to grant exclusive jurisdiction over that action to a specialized court like the Family Court.
Facts:
- In August 1962, Anita and Theodore Kagen entered into a separation agreement that was later incorporated into a Mexican divorce decree.
- The agreement required Theodore Kagen to pay Anita Kagen (now Reisner) $60 per week for the support and maintenance of their two children.
- Anita Reisner, on behalf of her children, sought to increase the child support payments based on the changed financial circumstances of Theodore Kagen.
- The new support sought was for a declaratory judgment establishing annual payments of $7,500 per child, a $1,000 vacation fund for each, and a $2,000 educational fund for each.
- This action was brought solely for the modification of child support and was not incidental to any other matrimonial action.
Procedural Posture:
- The infant plaintiffs, by their mother Anita Reisner, commenced an action against their father, Theodore Kagen, in the New York Supreme Court (a trial court).
- Kagen moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court, Special Term (the court of first instance), granted the motion to dismiss.
- The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, holding that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction.
- The Appellate Division certified a question to the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) to review the correctness of its order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 1962 amendment to Article VI, Section 7 of the New York Constitution grant the Supreme Court subject-matter jurisdiction over an independent action for child support modification, an action over which the Family Court Act purports to give the Family Court exclusive original jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, J.
Yes. The 1962 constitutional amendment expanded the Supreme Court's jurisdiction by removing prior limitations and granting it power over 'new classes of actions and proceedings.' The court defines a 'new class of action' as any proceeding not recognized at common law, regardless of whether a similar statutory proceeding existed in a specialized court prior to the amendment. Because an independent action for child support modification was unknown at common law, it falls within this expanded jurisdiction. While the Family Court Act purports to grant 'exclusive' jurisdiction, another constitutional provision (Art. VI, § 13, subd. d) explicitly states that the Family Court's jurisdiction shall not limit or impair the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the jurisdiction is concurrent, and the Supreme Court may hear the case or, in its discretion, transfer it to the Family Court.
Dissenting - Jasen, J.
No. The Supreme Court did not possess jurisdiction over this type of support action prior to the 1962 amendment, and the amendment did not change this. The phrase 'shall create new classes of actions' refers only to causes of action created by the legislature after the amendment's effective date, not to all actions unrecognized at common law. Since comparable child support modification proceedings existed in specialized courts before 1962, this is not a 'new' action within the amendment's meaning. The majority's broad interpretation ignores the plain language of the constitution, renders the words 'shall create new' meaningless, and frustrates the legislative intent to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Family Court to handle such specialized and sensitive matters, thereby inviting forum shopping.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally redefines the jurisdictional landscape in New York by establishing the Supreme Court's nearly absolute primacy. It interprets the 1962 constitutional amendment as a broad grant of power, effectively preventing the Legislature from creating truly exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction in any specialized court for non-common law actions. The ruling solidifies the principle that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is concurrent for all statutory claims, regardless of legislative language to the contrary. This has a lasting impact on litigation strategy, allowing plaintiffs to choose between specialized courts and the Supreme Court, while also empowering the Supreme Court to transfer cases as it sees fit.
