## Facts

- Anita and Theodore Kagen executed a separation agreement in 1962, later incorporated into a Mexican divorce decree.
- The agreement required Theodore to pay $60 per week for support of the couple’s two children.
- In 1965, the children (by their mother as guardian) and the mother individually sued in New York Supreme Court seeking substantially increased child support.
- The children sought declaratory relief establishing rights to yearly sums for support, vacations, and education.
- Theodore moved to dismiss the increased-support causes of action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. After the 1962 amendment to the New York Constitution’s judiciary article, does the New York Supreme Court have subject-matter jurisdiction over an action brought solely to obtain child support?
2. Does the Family Court’s constitutionally and statutorily described “exclusive original jurisdiction” over support proceedings preclude Supreme Court jurisdiction in such a case?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division and held that the Supreme Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a stand-alone child support action.
- The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative.
- The Court rejected the view that Family Court Act provisions describing Family Court jurisdiction as “exclusive original” divested the Supreme Court of power to hear such claims.
- The case was permitted to proceed in Supreme Court on the challenged support claims.

## Legal Principles

- The New York Supreme Court is a court of original, unlimited jurisdiction; its jurisdiction is not curtailed by statute absent clear constitutional authorization.
- A constitutional and statutory grant to the Family Court of “exclusive original jurisdiction” over support matters does not, without clear constitutional language, oust the Supreme Court’s general jurisdiction.
- Post-1962, Family Court jurisdiction over child support is generally concurrent with Supreme Court jurisdiction; Family Court’s “exclusive original” phrasing operates as exclusivity among lower courts of limited jurisdiction rather than against the Supreme Court.
- Prior pre-1962 limitations that prevented Supreme Court from entertaining freestanding child support actions are not controlling under the amended constitutional structure.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that the 1962 constitutional reorganization did not diminish the New York Supreme Court’s broad original jurisdiction, and that child support proceedings may be brought in Supreme Court even when not incidental to a matrimonial action, because Supreme Court and Family Court have concurrent jurisdiction over such claims.


Kagen v. Kagen, 21 N.Y.2d 532, 289 N.Y.S.2d 195, 236 N.E.2d 475 (N.Y. 1968)