In an exercise of this court's discretion under section 500.17 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.17), we decline to accept the two questions
We fully appreciate the value of the certification process, in saving "time, energy, and resources and help[ing to] build a cooperative judicial federalism" (Lehman Bros. v Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391), by allowing this court in a non-State action to declare the law of the State of New York (see, Kidney v Kolmar Labs., 68 N.Y.2d 343, submitted after certification 808 F.2d 955, 957; see generally, Report, Committee on Federal Courts, Analysis of State Laws Providing for Certification by Federal Courts of Determinative State Issues of Law, 42 Rec AB City NY 101 ).
The situation presented, however, raises another consideration. The very questions now tendered for our review were only recently answered by Supreme Court, New York County, in McDougald v Garber (132 Misc.2d 457), and are the subject of an appeal currently going forward in the Appellate Division, First Department. Were we to undertake to answer the certified questions now, by the extraordinary procedure of
Acceptance of certification of questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to section 500.17 of this court's Rules of Practice (22 NYCRR 500.17) declined.