opinion: GOTTHILF v. SILLS et al.
  No. 50.
  Argued October 24, 1963.
  —Decided November 18, 1963.
  O. John Rogge argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
  Theodore Chamas argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
  Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney General of New York, filed a brief as amicus curiae, urging dismissal of the writ as improvidently granted or, in the alternative, affirmance. With him on the brief was Paxton Blair, Solicitor General.
  Per Curiam.
  The Supreme Court of New York County issued an order granting body execution (N. Y. Civ. Prac. Act § 764) against petitioner for failure to pay a money judgment which had been finally entered against him in that court in an action premised on fraud and deceit. On appeal to the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, petitioner attacked § 764 as being violative of both the state and federal constitutions. The order was affirmed, 17 App. Div. 2d 723. Petitioner then filed a motion in the Court of Appeals of New York for leave to appeal (N. Y. Civ. Prac. Act § 589) which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because “the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.” 12 N. Y. 2d 761, 186 N. E. 2d 563. See Chase Watch Corp. v. Heins, 283 N. Y. 564, 27 N. E. 2d 282 (1940); cf. Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Oneonta, C. & R. S. R. Co., 197 N. Y. 391, 90 N. E. 1111 (1910). An appeal to the Court of Appeals as of right (N. Y. Civ. Prac. Act § 588) was dismissed on the same ground. 12 N. Y. 2d 792, 186 N. E. 2d 811. Certiorari was granted to review the judgment of the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department. 372 U. S. 957.
  Section 589 of the New York Civil Practice Act provides inter alia that appeals from nonfinal orders can only be taken to the Court of Appeals by leave of the Appellate Division upon certified questions. The petitioner at no time applied to the Appellate Division for such permission. It therefore appears that the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, “was not the last state court in which a decision of that [constitutional] question could be had.” Gorman v. Washington University, 316 U. S. 98, 100 (1942). The judgment of the Appellate Division is not that of the “highest court of a State in which a decision could be had” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257. Whether, under the same section, that judgment is “final,” a question of purely federal law, involves entirely different considerations. The petition for certiorari was therefore improvidently granted and the writ is
  Dismissed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.