2002] [where petitioner’s claim for affirmative relief—the evic-
tion of the respondent pastor—cannot be accomplished without
a declaratory judgment that the pastor was properly terminated,
which was solely within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,
the proper remedy was not dismissal of the case but transfer of
the case from Civil Court to Supreme Court]; Simmons v Sim-
mons, 2 Misc 3d 536, 541 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2003] [the
directive to transfer is cast in mandatory, and not permissive,
terms]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws
of NY, Book 29A, CCA 202 at 37.)
Furthermore, within the context of other courts of limited ju-
risdiction, article VI, § 19 has been interpreted as mandating
transfer rather than dismissal where such lower court lacked
93 RALPH v NYCHA LAW DEPT. [41 Misc 3d 692] 701
jurisdiction. (See Abrams v Braker Mem. Home, 123 AD2d 585
[1st Dept 1986] [article VI, § 19 (d) mandates transfer, rather
than dismissal, when the Surrogate’s Court lacks jurisdiction];
Matter of Rita F. v Neil F., 12 Misc 3d 894 [Fam Ct, NY County
2006] [article VI, § 19 (e) obliges Family Court to transfer ac-
tions over which it has no jurisdiction to Criminal Court rather
than dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction].) In light of the
above, this court is compelled to transfer the case to Supreme
Court, Kings County rather than dismiss it.
To implement the transfer, the plaintiff shall purchase an
index number in Supreme Court and a request for judicial
intervention and complete and file the appropriate forms and
papers, with a copy of this order. The plaintiff shall then pre-
sent proof of the filing to the Clerk of the Civil Court, who shall
then transfer this action and motion to Supreme Court. (Sim-