New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Indian Law § 5 (2026)

Actions in state courts

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5. Actions in state courts.  Any action or special proceeding
between Indians or between one or more Indians and any other person or
persons may be prosecuted and enforced in any court of the state to the
same extent as provided by law for other actions and special
proceedings.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: Peters v. Noonan, 871 F. Supp. 2d 218 (W.D.N.Y. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peters v. Noonan, 871 F. Supp. 2d 218 (W.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 3× “§ 233 , N.Y. Indian Law § 5 , and other New York laws.”

People v. Anderson, 137 A.D.2d 259 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · cites it 4× “” The court further held that the State is not a person under 25 USC § 233 and Indian Law § 5 and that the court thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action.”

Oneida Indian Nation v. Burr, 132 A.D.2d 402 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). · cites it 10× “The sole issue raised on appeal is whether Supreme Court correctly ruled that plaintiff has capacity to sue by reason of 25 USC § 233 and Indian Law § 5. The Federal statute provides in pertinent part that: "The courts of the State of New York under the laws of such State shall…”

Seneca v. Seneca, 293 A.D.2d 56 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · cites it 2× “Addressing first the contention that the court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction violates the Seneca Nation’s right to self-government, we note that since 1953 New York courts have had jurisdiction over civil actions and special proceedings between Indians, and between…”

Alexander v. Hart, 64 A.D.3d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 2× “urisdiction in civil actions and proceedings involving Indians just as it would any “other civil actions and proceedings, as now or hereafter defined by the laws of such State” ( 25 USC § 233 ; see Snyder v Abrams, 214 AD2d 991, 991 [1995]; Matter of Anichinapeo v Bennett &…”

Bowen v. Doyle, 880 F. Supp. 99 (W.D.N.Y. 1995). “§ 233 and N.Y. Indian Law § 5 . 14 He *109 found that the State Court action is not barred by the pre-existing Peacemakers Court action because the issues pending before the State Court are not pending before the Peacemakers Court.”

Ransom v. St. Regis Mohawk Educ. & Cmty. Fund, Inc., 658 N.E.2d 989 (NY 1995). “Petitioners seek to predicate the jurisdiction of the New York courts on 25 USC § 233 and New York’s Indian Law § 5, which similarly grant our courts jurisdiction in civil actions "between Indians or between one or more Indians and any other person or persons.”

Valvo v. Seneca Nation of Indians, 170 Misc. 2d 512 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “(Citing 25 USC §§ 232 , 233; Indian Law § 5.) That analysis, however, oversimplifies plaintiffs’ suit.”

Parry v. Haendiges, 458 F. Supp. 2d 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 2× “The fact that the State’s jurisdiction over the underlying dispute is concurrent, rather than exclusive, is evident from a reading of N.Y. IndiaN Law § 46 , which provides that the Peacemakers Court of the Cattaraugus reservation has jurisdiction to grant divorces between…”

Cayuga Nation v. Jacobs, 44 Misc. 3d 389 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014). “Subject Matter Jurisdiction The plaintiffs argue that this court has jurisdiction to determine the underlying civil causes of action pursuant to 25 USC § 233 and Indian Law § 5. “Although New York courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the internal affairs of Indian…”

Snyder v. Abrams, 214 A.D.2d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). “Plaintiffs action is within the contemplation of 25 USC § 233 and Indian Law § 5, which give State courts jurisdiction over private civil litigation between Indians to the same extent as courts have jurisdiction in other civil actions and proceedings (see, People v *992…”

Matter of Ryan S. (Scott S.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04850 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). “Whereas Supreme Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Peacemakers' Court over the subject matter of this proceeding ( see Indian Law § 5), we conclude that, because the Peacemakers' Court had already acted on the same issue, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.