suggestion immunity in New York

1944Companía -Espanola v. Navemar, 303 U. S. 68 ; Ex Parte Republic of Peru, United States Supreme Court, October term, 1942, Original No. 13, decided April 5, 1943. “ Wherefore, the undersigned by direction of the Attorney General of the United States advises this Court of the foregoing communications and suggests and prays that the claim of immunity made on behalf of said Petróleos Mexicanos and recognized and allowed by the State Department be given full force and effect by this Court; that the said Petróleos Mexicanos and its property be declared immune from the jurisdiction and process of thi

1939It is true, of course, as the court pointed out in Compania Espanola de Navegacion Maritima, S. A. v. The Navemar (supra, p.74 ), that a foreign government may claim immunity from suit either in the court or through diplomatic channels, and “ if the claim is recognized and allowed by the executive branch of the government, it is then the duty of the courts to [accept the claim of immunity] upon appropriate suggestion by the Attorney-General of the United States, or other officer acting under his direction.” Here, as the United States Attorney states, he has done no more than to “ present ” the

1903In this case, referring to the limitation of time, the court say: “ And if we may refer to the revisers’ notes the section was made thus explicit to avoid the necessity of pleading the statute.” In Budd v. Walker ( 9 Barb. 493 ) the court say: “ It is not denied that in the old action of trespass for mesne profits the recovery was limited to the six years next preceding the commencement of the action to recover them. * * * The object of all statutes of limitation is to prevent the setting up of stale and dormant claims.

1903In this case, referring to the limitation of time, the court say: “And, if we may refer to the reviser’s notes, the section was made thus explicit to avoid the necessity of pleading the statute.” In Budd v. Walker, 9 Barb. 493 , the court say: “It Is not denied that in the old action of trespass for mesne profits the recovery was limited to the six years next preceding the commencement of the action to recover them. * * * The object of all statutes of limitation is to prevent the setting up of stale and dormant claims.

2023Finally, we reject the suggestion that our standard of meaningful representation “viewed in totality” allows us to justify ineffective performance on a core issue at trial via effective performance on ancillary pretrial issues (Benevento, 91 NY2d at 712 , quoting Baldi, 54 NY2d at 147 ).

2023Finally, we reject the suggestion that our standard of meaningful representation “viewed in totality” allows us to justify ineffective performance on a core issue at trial via effective performance on ancillary pretrial issues (Benevento, 91 NY2d at 712 , quoting Baldi, 54 NY2d at 147 ).

2022However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the 28 days from February 22, 2012, to March 21, 2012, were excludable, since the Supreme Court adjourned the case at the suggestion of defense counsel, in order to obtain certain of the complainant's school records ( see People v Worley , 66 NY2d 523, 527 ; cf. People v Cox , 139 AD3d 1083, 1084 ).

2022However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the 28 days from February 22, 2012, to March 21, 2012, were excludable, since the Supreme Court adjourned the case at the suggestion of defense counsel, in order to obtain certain of the complainant's school records ( see People v Worley , 66 NY2d 523, 527 ; cf. People v Cox , 139 AD3d 1083, 1084 ).

1988Courts are bound by suggestions of immunity submitted by the executive branch because they are a "conclusive determination by the political arm of the Government” (Ex Parte Peru, 318 US 578, 589 ; Mexico v Hoffman, 324 US 30 ; see also, Matter of United States of Mexico v Schmuck, 293 NY 264 , rearg granted 293 NY 768 , original determination adhered to 294 NY 265 ).

1988Thus, upon a filing of a suggestion of immunity, it becomes the "court’s duty” to surrender jurisdiction (Ex Parte Peru, supra, at 588 ; Mexico v Hoffman, supra, at 35 ).

1988Courts are bound by suggestions of immunity submitted by the executive branch because they are a "conclusive determination by the political arm of the Government” (Ex Parte Peru, 318 US 578, 589 ; Mexico v Hoffman, 324 US 30 ; see also, Matter of United States of Mexico v Schmuck, 293 NY 264 , rearg granted 293 NY 768 , original determination adhered to 294 NY 265 ).

1988Thus, upon a filing of a suggestion of immunity, it becomes the "court’s duty” to surrender jurisdiction (Ex Parte Peru, supra, at 588 ; Mexico v Hoffman, supra, at 35 ).

1982The operative principle may also be applicable in other situations, including claims for equitable relief (cf. Grago v Robertson, 49 AD2d 645 ).

1981Such was the case in Musco v Lupi ( 6 Misc 2d 930 ) where the defendant had a related counterclaim and, after acquiescing in the court’s suggestion that his claim be litigated in the first action, deliberately proceeded solely by way of defense without seeking affirmative recovery of damages though having been given every opportunity to do so.

1961The communication of the Department of State dated June 22, 1959 requesting the Attorney General to submit to the court its suggestion of immunity adverts to Dexter & Carpenter v. Kunglig Jarnvagsstyrelsen ( 43 F. 2d 705 , cert. denied 282 U. S. 896 ) and Bradford v. Chase Nat.

1961The communication of the Department of State dated June 22, 1959 requesting the Attorney General to submit to the court its suggestion of immunity adverts to Dexter & Carpenter v. Kunglig Jarnvagsstyrelsen ( 43 F. 2d 705 , cert. denied 282 U. S. 896 ) and Bradford v. Chase Nat.

1961Transandine Handelmaatschappij, 289 N. Y. 9 ; Bollack v. Societe Generale, 263 App. Div. 601 .) Moreover, the suggestion of immunity disclaims any interest on the part of the United States.

1961(See Matter of United States of Mexico v. Schmuck, 294 N. Y. 265 .) Rich v. Naviera Vacuba ( 295 F. 2d 24 ) relied on by appellant is inapposite.

1961(See Hannes v. Kingdom of Roumania Monopolies Inst., 260 App. Div. 189 ; Ulen & Co. v. Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, 261 App. Div. 1 .) We find that the suggestion of immunity does not preclude judicial determination of title to the assets of the defendant in the custody of the court allegedly transferred in fraud of defendant’s creditors to Statni Bank or the Republic of Czechoslovakia.

1961(See Hannes v. Kingdom of Roumania Monopolies Inst., 260 App. Div. 189 ; Ulen & Co. v. Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, 261 App. Div. 1 .) We find that the suggestion of immunity does not preclude judicial determination of title to the assets of the defendant in the custody of the court allegedly transferred in fraud of defendant’s creditors to Statni Bank or the Republic of Czechoslovakia.

1961(See Hannes v. Kingdom of Roumania Monopolies Inst., 260 App. Div. 189 ; Ulen & Co. v. Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, 261 App. Div. 1 .) We find that the suggestion of immunity does not preclude judicial determination of title to the assets of the defendant in the custody of the court allegedly transferred in fraud of defendant’s creditors to Statni Bank or the Republic of Czechoslovakia.

1961(See Hannes v. Kingdom of Roumania Monopolies Inst., 260 App. Div. 189 ; Ulen & Co. v. Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, 261 App. Div. 1 .) We find that the suggestion of immunity does not preclude judicial determination of title to the assets of the defendant in the custody of the court allegedly transferred in fraud of defendant’s creditors to Statni Bank or the Republic of Czechoslovakia.

1961Transandine Handelmaatschappij, 289 N. Y. 9 ; Bollack v. Societe Generale, 263 App. Div. 601 .) Moreover, the suggestion of immunity disclaims any interest on the part of the United States.

1961Bank ( 24 F. Supp. 28, 38 , affd. sub nom.

1961The communication of the Department of State dated June 22, 1959 requesting the Attorney General to submit to the court its suggestion of immunity adverts to Dexter & Carpenter v. Kunglig Jarnvagsstyrelsen ( 43 F. 2d 705 , cert. denied 282 U. S. 896 ) and Bradford v. Chase Nat.

1961The communication of the Department of State dated June 22, 1959 requesting the Attorney General to submit to the court its suggestion of immunity adverts to Dexter & Carpenter v. Kunglig Jarnvagsstyrelsen ( 43 F. 2d 705 , cert. denied 282 U. S. 896 ) and Bradford v. Chase Nat.

1960The appeal was dismissed “ for want of a substantial federal question.” ( 356 U. S. 22 .) This application is based upon a suggestion of immunity, filed by the Department of State of the United States, through the offices of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

1955(Davison v. Klaess, 280 N. Y. 252, 262 .) Where the creditor, in receiving payment of an amount equal to the principal, accepts it unconditionally or without a suggestion of a claim to interest, it is generally assumed that the payment is in full satisfaction of the debt and interest.

1947Soviet Republic, 234 N. Y. 372, 376 .) It follows that the court is bound to accord recognition to and uphold the suggestion of immunity presented by the Department of State, through the United States attorney for the eastern district of New York.

1941In The Pasaro ( 255 U. S. 216 ) the suggestion was not intended to place the diplomatic representative or "his government in the attitude of a suitor, nor was the suggestion established by proof.

1941In Ex Parte Muir ( 254 U. S. 522 ) the suggestion of immunity did not come through official channels, but from private counsel appearing as amicus curise, who, on being challenged, refused to submit proof in support of the claim.

1927Under the Code of Civil Procedure the subsequent proceeding by action for mesne profits, or suggestion, was obviated by providing (§§ 1496, 1497) that in an action to recover the realty plaintiff could demand in his complaint and in a proper case recover damages for withholding the property, that those damages included the rents and profits or the value of the use and occupation of the property “ where either can legally be recovered by the plaintiff,” and (§ 1531) that where plaintiff recovers judgment for the property, or possession thereof, he “is entitled to recover as damages the rents an