You are here: / / STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP...
,

STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion with three extensive concurring opinions, determined the statutes criminalizing assisted suicide are constitutional in that they do not violate the due process or equal protection clauses.

​

Plaintiffs ask us to declare a constitutional right to “aid-in-dying,” which they define (and we refer to herein) as the right of a mentally competent and terminally ill person to obtain a prescription for a lethal dosage of drugs from a physician, to be taken at some point to cause death. Although New York has long recognized a competent adult’s right to forgo life-saving medical care, we reject plaintiffs’ argument that an individual has a fundamental constitutional right to aid-in-dying as they define it. We also reject plaintiffs’ assertion that the State’s prohibition on assisted suicide is not rationally related to legitimate state interests .. . . * * *

​

Our State’s equal protection guarantees are coextensive with the rights protected under the federal Equal Protection Clause … . In Vacco v Quill, the United States Supreme Court held that New York State’s laws banning assisted suicide do not unconstitutionally distinguish between individuals (521 US 793, 797 [1997]). As the Court explained, “[e]veryone, regardless of physical condition, is entitled, if competent, to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment; no one is permitted to assist a suicide. Generally, laws that apply evenhandedly to all unquestionably comply with equal protection” … . The Supreme Court has not retreated from that conclusion, and we see no reason to hold otherwise. * * *

​

… [T]he State pursues a legitimate purpose in guarding against the risks of mistake and abuse. The State may rationally seek to prevent the distribution of prescriptions for lethal dosages of drugs that could, upon fulfillment, be deliberately or accidentally misused. The State also has a significant interest in preserving life and preventing suicide, a serious public health problem … . As summarized by the Supreme Court, the State’s interests in prohibiting assisted suicide include: “prohibiting intentional killing and preserving life; preventing suicide; maintaining physicians’ role as their patients’ healers; protecting vulnerable people from indifference, prejudice, and psychological and financial pressure to end their lives; and avoiding a possible slide towards euthanasia” … . These legitimate and important State interests further “satisfy the constitutional requirement that a legislative classification bear a rational relation to some legitimate end” … . Myers v Schneiderman, 2017 NY Slip Op 06412, CtApp 9-7-17

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)/SUICIDE (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)/ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)/CRIMINAL LAW (ASSISTED SUICIDE, STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP)

You might also like
City Had Not Impliedly Dedicated Certain Parcels of Land as Public Parklands—Therefore the Parcels, Which Had Been Used as Public Parks, Were Not Protected by the Public Trust Doctrine and Could Be Sold by the City Without the Approval of the State Legislature
DEFENDANT MAY NOT APPEAL OR COLLATERALLY ATTACK AN “ILLEGALLY LENIENT” SENTENCE BECAUSE THE SENTENCE DID NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DEFENDANT (CT APP).
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WENT AHEAD WITH THE DRIVER’S LICENSE REVOCATION HEARING IN THE ABSENCE OF THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED THE DRIVER FOR DWI; THE DRIVER’S ARGUMENT HE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OFFICERS WAS REJECTED; THE DRIVER HAD SUBPOENAED THE OFFICERS BUT CHOSE NOT TO USE THE CPLR 2308 PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENAS; THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE WAS DEEMED “SUFFICIENT PROCESS” (CT APP).
RULE THAT RETIRED JUDGES WHO RETURN TO THE BENCH CANNOT RECEIVE BOTH A SALARY AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS IS NEITHER ILLEGAL NOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
EVEN IF THE OFFICER WERE WRONG ABOUT WHETHER A NON-FUNCTIONING CENTER BRAKE LIGHT VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, THE OFFICER’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE; THEREFORE THE STOP WAS VALID AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
FAMILY COURT MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNITE MOTHER, WHO IS INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED, WITH HER CHILD, WHO WAS REMOVED AFTER A NEGLECT FINDING, THE APPLICABILITY OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) AND THE ADA’S INTERPLAY WITH NEW YORK LAW IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (CT APP).
A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary Judgment In Favor of the Manufacturer, Even though the Safety Device Would Have Prevented the Injury/There Was Evidence the Safety Device Itself Was Defective, Leading to Its Removal by the Third Party/Therefore, the “Substantial Modification” Defense Did Not Insulate the Manufacturer from Liability as a Matter of Law
THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) WAS PROPERLY APPLIED RETROACTIVELY IN THIS CASE; RETROACTIVE APPLICATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OR CONTRACT CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (CT APP).

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

DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND... DESCRIPTION OF OFFICE SOUGHT WAS SUFFICIENT, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT...