Unkechaug Indian Nation v. Treadwell

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed orders dismissing as academic counterclaims concerning possessory rights to property within the Poospatuck Indian Reservation and denying injunctive relief. The court held that the Nation’s sovereign authority and a later tribal undesirability determination deprived the state court of subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute. The court also dismissed the appeal from the denial of reargument and affirmed the denial of renewal.

Holdings

1. By bringing the April 2018 tribal determination concerning Curtis's possessory rights before the state court and seeking a declaration and enforcement, the Nation waived sovereign immunity only as to that determination and its enforcement; the waiver did not extend to the separate 2019 undesirability determination.
2. Once the Nation adopted the 2019 undesirability determination and related directives under its sovereign authority, the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine Danielle's rights in the disputed property, and the claims became academic.
3. The state court properly declined to consider whether the 2019 tribal determination was entitled to comity or whether it violated the Tribal Rules or the Indian Civil Rights Act because the Nation did not ask the court to review or enforce that determination.
4. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument; the appeal from that portion of the July 9, 2020 order was properly dismissed.
5. The Supreme Court properly denied leave to renew because defendants failed to present new facts that would change the prior determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Nation's waiver of sovereign immunity in seeking judicial recognition and enforcement of the 2018 tribal determination extended to defendants' claims concerning the later 2019 tribal undesirability determination.
2. Whether the 2019 tribal undesirability determination deprived the state court of subject matter jurisdiction over the parties' dispute concerning possessory rights in reservation property.
3. Whether the state court was required or authorized to review the 2019 tribal determination under principles of comity or the Indian Civil Rights Act.
4. Whether the appeal from denial of reargument was appealable.
5. Whether defendants were entitled to leave to renew based on new facts.

Disposition

affirmed