You are here: / / “Case Management Fee” Imposed Upon Property Owners Who Do Not...

“Case Management Fee” Imposed Upon Property Owners Who Do Not Correct a Code Violation Within One Year Is an Unconstitutional Penalty Which Requires Due Process Protections

The Fourth Department determined a so-called “case management fee” (CMF) authorized by City of Rochester Municipal Code 90-21 is an unconstitutional penalty imposed without adequate due process.  The code provisions allows the assessment of $100 against a property owner who fails to correct a code violation within one year:

Although “[t]he exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality applies . . . to ordinances of municipalities[,] . . . [that] presumption is rebuttable” …, and we conclude that petitioners have rebutted the presumption of constitutionality.

A determination whether the CMF is a fee or a fine imposed as a penalty is critical to our analysis because “[p]rocedural due process rights do not apply to legislation of general applicability,” and thus the imposition of fees such as licensing fees are “not subject to attack on grounds of procedural due process. Fines [that are imposed as a penalty], however, can implicate procedural due process rights” … . * * *

Having concluded that the CMF is a fine imposed as a penalty on the property owner, we must determine whether the ordinance provides property owners with due process of law. As the Court of Appeals wrote in Morgenthau v Citisource, Inc. (68 NY2d 211), “[w]e have long recognized that due process is a flexible constitutional concept calling for such procedural protections as a particular situation may demand' . . . [,] and in determining whether [f]ederal due process standards have been met, we look to the three distinct factors that form the balancing test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mathews v Eldridge (424 US 319, 335): First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail' ” (id. at 221).

While we agree with the court that the private interest at stake, i.e., $100, “is relatively insubstantial,” we conclude that there is a significant risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures established by the ordinance. * * *

Although ” [d]ue process does not, of course, require that the defendant in every civil case actually have a hearing on the merits' ” …, we conclude that due process requires some type of hearing at which the City should be required to establish that property owners did not abate the violation within the one-year period. Matter of D'Alessandro v Kirkmire, 2015 NY Slip Op 01018, 4th Dept 2-6-15


You might also like
DEFENDANT IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE DEMONSTRATED MITIGATING FACTORS WARRANTING A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO SORA RISK LEVEL ONE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TERMS OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT INDICATED BUYER, WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY KNOWING IT WAS CONTAMINATED BY OIL, WOULD INDEMNIFY SELLER FOR COSTS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BUYER, WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT ‘ON BEHALF OF AN ENTITY TO BE FORMED,’ WAS INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROOF DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED A FIREARM FOUND IN THE CEILING OF A HOUSE WHERE DEFENDANT WAS A GUEST WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DNA EVIDENCE MAY HAVE DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE FIREARM AT SOME POINT IN TIME, BUT IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AT THE TIME THE FIREARM WAS SEIZED (FOURTH DEPT).
Criteria for Appellate Review of Arbitrator’s Award 
DECISION WHETHER TO ADMIT OR DENY ALLEGATIONS IN A PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT IS RESERVED TO DEFENDANT PERSONALLY, NOT DEFENSE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).
Motion to Set Aside Convictions Based On Newly Discovered Evidence Should Have Been Granted
THE JUDGMENTS ISSUED BY THE NATION COURT FOR A VIOLATION OF A CAYUGA NATION ORDINANCE CONSTITUTED FINES; A FOREIGN COUNTRY’S JUDGMENTS FOR FINES ARE NOT RECOGNIZED OR ENFORCEABLE IN NEW YORK STATE COURTS (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Teacher at a Community College Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Teacher... Warrantless Search of Defendant’s Jacket Not Justified–Defendant...