Doe v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York

• Decision Date: 07 December 2000
• Citation: 717 N.Y.S.2d 417,278 A.D.2d 564
• Parties: JOHN DOE, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, Doing Business as TURNING STONE CASINO and TURNING STONE RESORT HOTEL, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

278 A.D.2d 564

717 N.Y.S.2d 417

JOHN DOE, Appellant,

v.ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, Doing Business as TURNING STONE CASINO and TURNING STONE RESORT HOTEL, Respondent.

Mugglin, J.

Decided December 7, 2000.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

Mugglin, J.

Defendant owns and operates the Turning Stone Casino and Resort Hotel (hereinafter Hotel) which is located on land separate from the reservation of the Oneida Indian Nation. During the early morning hours of February 7, 1998, plaintiff's leg was pierced by a hypodermic needle projecting from his mattress at the Hotel. Although plaintiff's injury did not require hospitalization, since the incident plaintiff has continuously undergone HIV testing which has been negative. Initially, plaintiff sought compensation through the Indian Nation Peacemaker Court, ultimately rejecting a settlement offer. Although his case is apparently still pending in the tribal court system, plaintiff commenced this action seeking $20 million for mental pain and distress. Supreme Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), holding that defendant possesses sovereign immunity and, thus, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the action. Plaintiff appeals.

We affirm. It is fundamental that Indian tribes possess sovereign immunity from suit in state and Federal courts (see, Oklahoma State Tax Commn. v Potowatomi Tribe, 498 US 505, 509; Matter of Ransom v St. Regis Mohawk Educ. & Community Fund, 86 NY2d 553, 558; Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 275 AD2d 145, 151, n 2; Matter of New York Assn. of Convenience Stores v Urbach, 275 AD2d 520, appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 931). We reject plaintiff's attempts to distinguish these cases, finding his reliance on Oneida Indian Nation v Burr (132 AD2d 402) to be misplaced. Here, plaintiff is a non-Indian seeking to acquire jurisdiction over a sovereign nation. In Burr, the plaintiff, Oneida Indian Nation, commenced its lawsuit in the State court system (see, Ransom v St. Regis Mohawk Educ. & Community Fund, supra, at 560, n 3). Moreover, the fact that plaintiff sustained injury at the Hotel, a commercial activity allegedly outside the Oneida Indian Reservation, provides no foundation for an exception to the sovereign immunity rule. Tribes are immune from suits arising from their commercial activities, whether conducted on or off the reservation (see, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v Manufacturing...