You are here: / / Sovereign Immunity Did Not Apply to Golf Course Owned by Seneca Nation

Sovereign Immunity Did Not Apply to Golf Course Owned by Seneca Nation

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, determined the Lewiston Golf Course Corporation (LGCC) was not an “arm” of the Seneca Nation and, therefore, was not entitled to sovereign immunity and could be sued in New York courts:

It is well settled that “Indian tribes are immune from lawsuits in both state and federal court unless ‘Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity’ ” … . Less settled is the law governing whether, and to what extent, economic entities created by a tribe share in the tribe’s immunity from suit … .“Tribal subagencies and corporate entities created by the Indian Nation to further governmental objectives, such as providing housing, health and welfare services, may also possess attributes of tribal sovereignty, and cannot be sued absent a waiver of immunity” ….    The critical question is “whether the entity acts as an arm of the tribe so that its activities are properly deemed to be those of the tribe” … , i.e., whether the entity is “so closely allied with and dependent upon the [t]ribe that it is entitled to the protection of tribal sovereign immunity”….… [W]e conclude that LGCC is not an “arm” of the Nation and therefore falls outside the Nation’s cloak of sovereign immunity … .  Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving Inc v Lewiston Golf Course Corporation …, 478, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ACCOUNTING, HE NEVER REPUDIATED HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACCOUNTING WAS NOT TRIGGERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Admissibility of Medical Records as Business Records Does Not Preclude Evidentiary Objections to Admission
UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION AGAIN FOUND THE SEVEN-YEAR PREINDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION CASE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S ASKING DEFENDANT WHERE HE RESIDED WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE WAS NOT PEDIGREE INFORMATION AND A CPL 710.30 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED, ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE A SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE FAILURE “INFECTED” THE GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE SUPPRESSION COULD HAVE LED TO DISMISSAL OF SOME OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER (1) DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, (2) WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND (3) WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
“Arbitrary and Capricious” Defined/Criteria for Elimination of a Public-Employee Position Explained
THE THREE-STEP BATSON PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED WHEN THE DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO SATISFY BATSON (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Oral Evidence in Quantum Meruit Case Rejected by Appellate Court Appellate Court Recognized Prior Decision Was “Clearly Erroneous” and Did...