You are here: / / New York City Administrative Code Imposing a $2000 Fine for Removal Recyclable...
,

New York City Administrative Code Imposing a $2000 Fine for Removal Recyclable Material from Curb Violated Excessive-Fines Clauses​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, the First Department determined the New York City Administrative Code provision which imposed a $2000 fine for the removal of recyclable material from the curb violated the Eighth Amendment as applied.  The code provision was designed to prevent large scale removal of recyclable material which deprived the City of recycling income. The petitioner was an artist who used recyclable material in his work.  He picked up a television antenna which had been put out on the curb.  He was pulled over by the NYC sanitation police, given a summons mandating a $2000 fine, and his vehicle was seized.  The First Department wrote:

It is undisputed that petitioner violated the relevant Administrative Code provision—he removed and transported a recyclable object using a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, under the specific circumstances here, we conclude that the mandatory $2,000 penalty amounts to an unconstitutionally excessive fine. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids the imposition of “excessive fines.” The New York State Constitution contains the same prohibition (art I, § 5). The Excessive Fines Clause ” limits the government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense””… . A fine is unconstitutionally excessive if it “notably exceeds in amount that which is reasonable, usual, proper or just” …. Thus, the Excessive Fines Clause is violated where the fine is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of [the] offense”… . Matter of Prince v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03623, 1st Dept, 5-21-1

 

You might also like
THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY THAT DEFECTS IN THE HANDRAIL OR THE STAIR RISER HEIGHTS CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OVER $500,000 PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT WAS VACATED AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, AFTER A COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE, ISSUED A PRECLUSION ORDER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MOTION PENDING (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THAT, ‘BUT FOR’ THE ATTORNEYS’ WITHDRAWAL OF AN APPEAL, PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE PREVAILED AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT CHARGING FORCIBLE TOUCHING DID NOT ALLEGE THE APPLICATION OF PRESSURE AS AN ELEMENT OF THE TOUCHING RENDERING THE COMPLAINT LEGALLY INSFUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).
FALL ON THE SURFACE OF SCAFFOLDING NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), OVERSIGHT OF SITE SAFETY NOT ENOUGH FOR LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION.
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 340 (RESTRAINT OF TRADE) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED IN THIS FRAUD ACTION INVOLVING DIAMOND APPRAISALS (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiffs, Who Provided Management Services to a Club Described in the Media as “Run by the Mafia,” Did Not Raise a Question of Fact About Whether the Remark Was “Of and Concerning” the Plaintiffs by “Innuendo”
THE A-FRAME LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING WHEN HE FELL WAS DEFECTIVE AND LABOR LAW 240(1) APPLIED ON THAT GROUND ALONE; EVEN IF THE LADDER HAD NOT BEEN DEFECTIVE, LABOR LAW 240(1) WOULD STILL APPLY BECAUSE THE LADDER WOBBLED AFTER PLAINTIFF RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK; THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICABILITY OF LABOR LAW 240(1) WHERE A LADDER-FALL IS PRECEDED BY AN ELECTRIC SHOCK (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Proof of Service of Notice of Entry of Default Judgment; One Year Deadline... Sudden Unexpected Action by Student Did Not Support Action Based on Negligent...