Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Citation
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-07-03
Other Sections in This Document (21)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
Full Text
1,004 charsPetitioner argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over this counterclaim because only federal courts may entertain causes of action that arise from violations of 24 CFR part 35, subpart A. Petitioner posits that the treble damages sought by respondent must be brought in federal court pursuant to 28 USC § 1355 (a) which states: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of any action or proceeding for the recovery or enforcement of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, incurred under any Act of Congress, except matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade under section 1582 of this title.” Petitioner cites Coronet Props. v Lederer (NYLJ, Feb. 21, 1986, at 12, col 2 [App Term, 1st Dept]). However, as respondent correctly points out, the Coronet case is distinguishable in that the counterclaim alleged there sought damages for “mental distress and anguish” and was, therefore, appropriately severed.