(Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1999); In re Massa, 217 B.R. 412, 419 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1998), aff'd, 187 F.3d 292 (2d Cir.1999); Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Franklin, 179 B.R. 913, 924 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.1995); Adam Glass Serv., Inc. v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 173 B.R. 840, 843 (E.D.N.Y.1994); In re Szczepanik, 146 B.R. 905, 913 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1992); In re Thibodeau, 136 B.R. 7, 10 (Bankr.D.Mass.1992); In re Guzman, 130 B.R. 489, 491 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1991)). The New York Court of Appeals has long recognized that the State Courts have “the power, subject to statutory exception, to determine the effect of a [bankruptcy] discharge.” State v. Wilkes, 41 N.Y.2d 655, 657, 394 N.Y.S.2d 849, 363 N.E.2d 555 (1977) (citing Chevron Oil Co. v. Dobie, 40 N.Y.2d 712, 714, 389 N.Y.S.2d 819, 358 N.E.2d 502 (1976) (<HOLDING>)); see also Kavanagh v. 107-18 Realty Ass’n,
holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding a state court has an inescapable obligation to interpret and apply the federal statute holding that the state has no obligation to provide adequate housing recognizing that the rules of statutory construction apply when we interpret constitutional provisions holding that a reviewing court has an obligation to satisfy itself of the jurisdiction of the court below