Nuernberger v. State

Claimant, once convicted and imprisoned for assault arising from alleged incest with his 11-year-old daughter, sues the State for damages for wrongful imprisonment. He claims not innocence, but that he is entitled to damages because the County Court, which tried him, lacked "jurisdiction” to prosecute the assault unless the Family Court had first considered and transferred the matter to the County Court. The Appellate Division has twice held that claimant is entitled to damages for the reason assigned by him. The State appeals.

One may assume that the County Court is so lacking in power of adjudication over the subject matter as to be without competence to try the assault for which claimant had been tried. The issue, nevertheless, is whether the State is protected against a claim for false imprisonment when its admin

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the claim dismissed.

A court, otherwise competent to determine the kind of cause before it, which has "jurisdiction” at least to determine in the first instance whether it may or should retain "jurisdiction”, has, at least, some competence over the cause. Hence, its process and mandates may not be equated with process and mandates emanating from a court totally lacking in power, any power, over subject matter. Moreover, even if such process or mandate is void, it does not follow automatically that one affected by any kind of "void” process or mandate is entitled to damages because those obliged to enforce the "void” process or mandates performed the duty imposed on them by law.

Some "unlawful” commands addressed to the law’s ministers and minions must be obeyed (see, e.g., Cox, Void Order and Duty to Obey, 16 U Chi L Rev 86 , esp pp 99-110). That County Court lacked power to do more than ascertain the basic facts giving the Family Court first instance jurisdiction and to transfer the action to the Family Court does not render the County Court’s process or mandate a nullity. But for article 8 of the Family Court Act, which authorizes alternative treatment of certain otherwise criminal acts between persons of specified family relationships, the competence of the County Court to have tried and convicted claimant would be unquestioned (compare Family Ct Act, § 811, with NY Const, art VI, § 11, subd a). The concept of subject matter jurisdiction uncritically applied to award claimant damages against the State would work a grave injustice and would illustrate a recurring confusion over a term of unfortunately elastic meaning.

In April of 1966, claimant Nuernberger was indicted for three crimes committed on his 11-year-old daughter: incest, assault with intent to commit incest, and impairing the morals of a minor. Following a jury trial in Erie County Court, Nuernberger was convicted of both the assault and the impairment charges. The sentence imposed for the assault conviction was from three to six years; on the impairment count a suspended maximum sentence of one year was imposed. Unanimous affirmance of the conviction by the Appellate Division followed (People v Nuernberger; 31 AD2d 718 ). Undisputed is that claimant was imprisoned pursuant to the County Court

In the prior direct appeal this court noted that the record sustained claimant’s conviction for assault (25 NY2d, at p 183). Reversal, however, was required by the Family Court Act which reposes initially in the Family Court "exclusive original jurisdiction” over "acts which would constitute * * * an assault * * * between parent and child.” (Family Ct Act, § 812; see NY Const, art VI, § 13, subd b.) Of course, the Family Court may elect to transfer jurisdiction to an appropriate criminal court (Family Ct Act, §§ 811, 816, subd [a]; People v Johnson, 20 NY2d 220 , 223).

Not more than three months after his release by the Family Court, on one year’s probation on consent, claimant sued in the Court of Claims. His argument was simple. Since initial exclusive original jurisdiction over the assault charge was in Family Court, the County Court in which he had been convicted and sentenced lacked jurisdiction over both the person of the claimant and the subject matter of the proceeding. Hence, he argues, any mandates issued by the County Court were null and void, affording no protection to the custodial authorities who acted in reliance on their validity.

To be sure, it has long been said and to some extent established, without examination evidently since -the common-law reports in this State, that process or mandate is void and hence cannot be relied upon where on its face it is apparent that the issuing court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter, that is, without competence to adjudicate the kind of cause before it (Savacool v Boughton, 5 Wend 170 , 172; cf. Harty v State of New York, 29 AD2d 243 , 244, affd 27 NY2d 698 ; Douglas v State of New York, 269 App Div 521 , 525, affd 296 NY 530 ; see, also, Troutman v State of New York, 273 App Div 619 , 621-622, pertaining to jurisdiction over the person). In general, the statement is true, except that it does not account for the power of a court to determine that it has no kind of jurisdiction over the category of cause before it (Family Ct Act, § 813; see Restatement, Judgments, § 10, Comment a; see, also, Dobbs, Validation of Void Judgments: Bootstrap Principle, 53 Va L Rev 1003 , 1005-1006, 1009-1014).

This case, however, does not yield to the facile classification suggested by the traditional statement of the rule. To begin

It is an encyclopedia commonplace that "[w]here a court is without jurisdiction in the particular case, its acts and proceedings can be of no force or validity, and are a mere nullity and void” (21 CJS, Courts, § 116). However deceptively attractive and convenient, this commonplace is both too simple and too broad. Definitions of "jurisdiction” are too varied and the consequences flowing from defective "jurisdiction” too diverse. See Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d 71 , 74, decided herewith; Ehrenzweig, Conflict of Laws, § 25, pp 72-73; Leflar, American Conflicts Law, § 3, pp 4-6.) In fact, discerning analysis would reveal that the absence of power of adjudication in a particular cause does not, in and of itself, automatically deprive a court’s acts and proceedings of their validity.

Indeed, this court has recognized that a defect in a court’s "jurisdiction”, because a defendant had not been sentenced for a six-year period after verdict, may be the basis for habeas corpus relief, but no ground on which to recover damages for false imprisonment. Thus, in People ex rel. Harty v Fay ( 10 NY2d 374 ) defendant was successful in procuring his release from prison but his subsequent claim for false imprisonment was rejected (Harty v State of New York, 27 NY2d 698 , affg 29 AD2d 243 , supra).

In rejecting the damage claim, this court evidently accepted the Appellate Division interpretation of the prior Court of Appeals holding of lack of jurisdiction as really only illegality

In line with the glib statement that absence of subject matter jurisdiction alone renders all process and mandates emanating from a court null, some courts have not made criminal the acts of a person resisting an arrest made pursuant to a warrant issued by a court said to be without "jurisdiction” (see People v Craig, 59 Cal 370 ; Criminal Liability for Obstructing Process as Affected by Invalidity or Irregularity of Process, Ann., 10 ALR3d 1146 , esp § 8; see, also, Witherspoon v State, 42 Tex Cr Rep 532, 536). In this State, however, automatic recourse to the purported rule with all its unlimited generalities has been challenged (People v Warren, 5 Hill 440 ; cf. People v Briggs, 19 NY2d 37 , 41-42). As noted in People v Warren (supra, p 440 ), involving a parallel problem and analysis, "[ajlthough the inspectors had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, yet as the warrant was regular on its face, it was a sufficient authority * * * to make the arrest, and the defendant had no right to resist the officer.”

Conclusive in demonstrating that the voidness rule is not absolute is the exception that, in some circumstances, a court’s erroneous determination that it has "subject matter jurisdiction” is subject to the doctrine of res judicata and, hence, is not vulnerable to collateral attack (O’Donoghue v Boies, 159 NY 87 , 99, 103, 105-106 [opns per O’Brien, J., and Parker, Ch. J.]; Bolton v Schriever, 135 NY 65 , 74; Restatement, Conflicts 2d, § 97, and Comments b, c; Restatement, Judgments, § 10, subd 1; Goodrich, Conflict of Laws [4th ed], § 23, p 38; Ehrenzweig, Conflict of Laws, § 57, subd a, pp 207-208; see Matter of Doey v Howland Co., 224 NY 30 , 38-39; cf. Vander v Casperson, 12 NY2d 56 , 59 [jurisdiction over defendants]). While the scope of this exception is no clearer than the rule to which it is an exception, key is that courts without so-

By now, it should be evident that the competence of a court to entertain matters in categories over which it has power to adjudicate may be quite different from its power to adjudicate particular causes which arise in the categories (see Bullymore v Cooper, 46 NY 236 , 241-242; cf. O’Donoghue v Boies, 159 NY 87 , 103, 107-108 [opn per Parker, Ch. J.], supra). As early as 1884, general "jurisdiction over the subject matter” was distinguished from jurisdiction in particular causes: "a ministerial officer is protected in the execution of process regular on its face, issued by a court, officer or body having general jurisdiction of the subject-matter, or jurisdiction to issue it under special circumstances, although in fact jurisdiction of the person or subject-matter did not exist in the particular case.” (Woolsey v Morris, 96 NY 311 , 315.) But even this distinction does not solve all the problems.

The voidness rule is applied sketchily. The exceptions to the rule are applied equally sketchily. The rule and its exceptions were engendered by independent and different purposes. By encouraging self-help with impunity, the rule preserves an effective safeguard against judicial usurpation of power. The exceptions protect administrative officials from the consequences of doing what they are required to do by law (Woolsey v Morris, 96 NY 311 , 315, supra).

And, of course, the troubles and the tensions between the rule and exceptions are both caused by and sheltered by the elastic and versatile definition and use of the term "jurisdiction”. Sometimes the word means power to adjudicate (e.g., Hunt v Hunt, 72 NY 217 , 228; Cooper v Davis, 231 App Div 527 , 529). Sometimes it means power to enforce orders against a person (e.g., People ex rel. Harty v Fay, 10 NY2d 374 , 379, supra). Sometimes it means power to execute commitments against particular property (e.g., Woolsey v Morris, 96 NY 311 , 315-316, supra). Sometimes it means power to adjudicate over a category of cases and another time it means power to adjudicate a particular case (compare O’Donoghue v Boies, 159 NY 87 , 103, 107-108 [Parker, Ch. J.], with id., at pp 97-99 [O’Brien, J.], supra). Sometimes this lack is fatal to the validity of any act of the tribunal. And sometimes it results in valid process or mandate because the issuing court, as in this case, was not wholly without competence to adjudicate something in the action before it.

Accordingly the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the claim dismissed.

Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.