Majority
Given the presumption of concurrent state court jurisdiction over federal claims (Simpson Elec. Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 72 NY2d 450 , 455 [1988]), the FDCPA’s expansive expression of jurisdiction to include not only the Federal District courts, but “any other court of competent jurisdiction” (15 USC § 1692k [d]), and the lack of any explicit statutory directive to the contrary, an unmistakable implication from legislative history, or clear incompatibility between State court jurisdiction and Federal interests (see Simpson Elec. Corp., 72 NY2d at 455 ), the court improperly dismissed plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim.
The court also improperly dismissed all of the claims by Charlene Owens on the ground of res judicata, due to a settlement in a prior case. Owens could not have raised the FDCPA as a counterclaim in the prior case because the plaintiff in that case was the creditor seeking to collect the rent due it, to which the FDCPA is not applicable (see Monogram Credit Card Bank of Ga. v Mata, 195 Misc 2d 96 , 97 [Civ Ct, NY County 2002]). Nor is there an identity of parties from the prior case, as the creditor in that case is not a party to this case, and defendant in this case was not a party in that case (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260 , 269 [2005]; All Terrain Props. v Hoy, 265 AD2d 87 , 92 [1st Dept 2000]).
Defendant’s request for summary judgment is not properly before us, as he did not appeal from the order (see Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57 , 61, 63 [1983]).
Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
Cases cited
- Simpson Electric Corp. v. Leucadia, Inc. 72 NY2d 450 at 455 p. 650
- Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia v. Mata 195 Misc 2d 96 at 97 p. 650
- In re the Estate of Hunter 4 NY3d 260 at 269 p. 650
- All Terrain Properties, Inc. v. Hoy 265 AD2d 87 at 92 p. 650
- Hecht v. City of New York 60 NY2d 57 at 61, 63 p. 650