case is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which states: Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties such facts are not properly before this Court. (Emphasis added) (Dkt. No. 140 at ¶ 8.) See also World Trade Center Properties, L.L.C. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 345 F.3d 154 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The determination of whether supplemental
holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss holding that because there was complete diversity when the action commenced diversity jurisdiction was not defeated by the addition of a nondiverse plaintiff which was not indispensable holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed holding that where complete diversity existed between plaintiff insurer and all of the defendants in declara tory judgment action regarding insurance coverage for destruction of office towers during the september 11th terrorist attack supplemental jurisdiction provided jurisdiction over insureds counterclaims against other insurers even though some of those insurers possibly were nondiverse holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees