What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. Your task is to identify the state or territory in which the case was first heard. If the case began in the federal district court, consider the state of that district court. If it is a habeas corpus case, consider the state of the state court that first heard the case. If the case originated in a federal administrative agency, answer "not applicable". Answer with the name of the state, or one of the following territories: District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, or "not applicable" or "not determined".

Opinion:
FOX-KNAPP, INC., and Cable Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 353, Docket 89-7505.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 16, 1989.
Decided Dec. 22, 1989.
Henry J. Bergman (Bachner, Tally, Pole-voy & Misher, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
James J. Taylor (Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, FEINBERG and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal raises the question whether, under New York law, certain actions taken by an insurance company requiring the insured claimants to produce documents and submit to an examination under oath after the expiration of the period provided in the policy for the filing of lawsuits constitute a waiver of the company’s limitations defense. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Haight, J., granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on plaintiffs’ late filing of the lawsuit and dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint seeking recovery under an insurance policy for property damage and business interruption losses caused by a fire in plaintiffs’ business premises.
We conclude that the defendant did not waive its limitations defense, as a matter of law, by putting plaintiffs to the expense of submitting to examination under oath and producing documents after expiration of the limitations period.
We affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by Judge Haight in his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 14, 1989, filed April 19, 1989, and reported at 725 F.Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

Question: In what state or territory was the case first heard?

Choices:
not
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachussets
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
New
New
New
North
North
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode
South
South
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin
Puerto
District
Guam
not
Panama

Answer: 32