You are here: / RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY...

Search Results

/ ,

RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the recording of a phone call made by defendant while he was detained was properly subpoenaed by the prosecution and defendant’s motion to preclude the recording was properly denied:

The motion court correctly declined to preclude a recorded telephone call that defendant made while detained before trial. Defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of the call, made primarily on Fourth Amendment grounds, is unavailing. Defendant impliedly consented to the recording of the call based on his receipt of multiple forms of notice that his calls would be recorded, and he was not entitled to separate notice that the calls might be subpoenaed by prosecutors… . Recordings of detainees’ calls are made for security purposes, and not for the purpose of gathering evidence. However, like any other nonprivileged evidence that is possessed by a nonparty and is relevant to a litigation, it may be subject to a lawful subpoena. Accordingly, once defendant consented to the recording of his phone calls, and chose nevertheless to make a call containing a damaging statement, he had no reasonable expectation that the call would be immune from being subpoenaed by the prosecution. People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 04821, First Dept 6-28-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRISON PHONE CALLS, RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT))/PRISON PHONE CALLS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) limited the right to demand arbitration to the union and not the fired employee:

From the dissent:

The language of CBA clearly grants the employee the right to elect arbitration. Even were the agreement ambiguous in that regard, it must be construed in favor of the employee’s right to demand arbitration. New York has established a policy favoring arbitration … , and the CBA itself provides that “in order to establish a more harmonious and cooperative relationship between the County. . . and its [p]ublic [e]mployees. . . [t]he provisions of this resolution shall be liberally construed.”

The majority’s contrary interpretation — that the CBA gives the right to proceed to arbitration only to the union — would mean that the employee could “elect” to exercise “his/her rights” only where the union agrees to arbitrate — a restriction that does not appear in the agreement. The employee may not know at the time of election whether the union will pursue arbitration, and therefore could not know the scope of “his/her rights” until it is too late. Further, the rights-granting language in the CBA treats the arbitration right and the [Civil Service Law] 75 right in parallel, emphasizing the employee’s right to choose. Matter of Widrick (Carpinelli), 2018 NY Slip Op 04780, CtApp 6-28-18

​ARBITRATION (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))/UNIONS (ARBITRATION, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT LIMITED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ARBITRATION TO THE UNION, NOT THE FIRED EMPLOYEE (CT APP))

/ ,

NEGLECT ALLEGATION AGAINST NURSING HOME FOR SYSTEMIC FAILURE PROPERLY FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, EVEN THOUGH THE RELATED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TWO EMPLOYEES WERE DEEMED TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs had the statutory authority to find that a neglect allegation against a nursing home was substantiated, even though the neglect allegations against two employees of the nursing home were deemed unsubstantiated. A female resident had, for the third time, been sexually assaulted by another resident in the common room while the common room was unattended. The employees were not required to be in the common room at all times. But the nursing home, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found, should have increased the level of required supervision because of the prior assaults:

Petitioner’s narrow construction of the statute would paradoxically leave the Justice Center powerless to address many systemic issues, defeating the purpose of the Act and preventing the Justice Center from protecting vulnerable persons where it is most critical to do so. As noted throughout the text and legislative history, the statutory overhaul embodied in the Act was necessary not only to address isolated incidents of abuse and neglect, but also to resolve systemic problems, such as inadequate staffing, training, and supervision, which often cause or contribute to incidents of abuse and neglect… . Indeed, systemic deficiencies may present a greater hazard to vulnerable residents than do discrete instances of employee misconduct, since employee-related incidents can often be remedied through targeted disciplinary action. Latent systemic problems, by contrast, are often more challenging to identify and more complicated to rectify—and therefore more likely to recur. Matter of Anonymous v Molik, 2018 NY Slip Op 04779, CtApp 6-28-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, NEGLECT ALLEGATION AGAINST NURSING HOME FOR SYSTEMIC FAILURE PROPERLY FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, EVEN THOUGH THE RELATED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TWO EMPLOYEES WERE DEEMED TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED (CT APP))/SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (NURSING HOMES, NEGLECT ALLEGATION AGAINST NURSING HOME FOR SYSTEMIC FAILURE PROPERLY FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, EVEN THOUGH THE RELATED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TWO EMPLOYEES WERE DEEMED TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED (CT APP))/SPECIAL NEEDS (JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, NEGLECT ALLEGATION AGAINST NURSING HOME FOR SYSTEMIC FAILURE PROPERLY FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, EVEN THOUGH THE RELATED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TWO EMPLOYEES WERE DEEMED TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED (CT APP))/JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, NEGLECT ALLEGATION AGAINST NURSING HOME FOR SYSTEMIC FAILURE PROPERLY FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, EVEN THOUGH THE RELATED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TWO EMPLOYEES WERE DEEMED TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED (CT APP))/NURSING HOMES (SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, NEGLECT ALLEGATION AGAINST NURSING HOME FOR SYSTEMIC FAILURE PROPERLY FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, EVEN THOUGH THE RELATED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TWO EMPLOYEES WERE DEEMED TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED (CT APP))/NEGLECT (SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, NEGLECT ALLEGATION AGAINST NURSING HOME FOR SYSTEMIC FAILURE PROPERLY FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, EVEN THOUGH THE RELATED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TWO EMPLOYEES WERE DEEMED TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED (CT APP))/SUPERVISION (NURSING HOMES, SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, NEGLECT ALLEGATION AGAINST NURSING HOME FOR SYSTEMIC FAILURE PROPERLY FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIATED, EVEN THOUGH THE RELATED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TWO EMPLOYEES WERE DEEMED TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED (CT APP))

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid:

The Supreme Court did not provide the defendant with an explanation of the nature of the right to appeal or explain the consequences of waiving that right. In addition, nothing in the record shows that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to his plea of guilty… . While the defendant was represented by counsel during the plea proceedings, counsel did not participate during the proceedings other than to acknowledge to the court that he was the defendant’s attorney, and counsel did not sign the defendant’s written appeal waiver form. Furthermore, although the record on appeal reflects that the defendant signed the written appeal waiver form, a written waiver “is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal” … . The court’s colloquy amounted to nothing more than a simple confirmation that the defendant signed the waiver and a conclusory statement that the defendant understood the waiver or was executing it knowingly and voluntarily … . Under the circumstances here, we conclude that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to appeal … . People v Latham, 2018 NY Slip Op 04753, Second Dept 6-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER, DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW,  DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated defendant’s grand larceny conviction in the interest of justice because the licenses from the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) do not constitute “property” within the meaning of the grand larceny statute:

The defendant’s conviction of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35[1]) was based on the alleged theft of licenses from the TLC. “A person is guilty of grand larceny in the third degree when he or she steals property and . . . when the value of the property exceeds three thousand dollars” … .. The licenses from the TLC are not considered “property” within the meaning of the statute … . Accordingly, although the defendant’s legal insufficiency claim is unpreserved for appellate review, we vacate his conviction of grand larceny in the third degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismiss that count of the indictment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Ishtiaq, 2018 NY Slip Op 04752,, Second Dept 6-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND LARCENY, TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/GRAND LARCENY (TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/TAXI LICENSES (CRIMINAL LAW, GRAND LARCENY, TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))

/

FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s convictions and ordered a new trial because the trial judge failed to comply with the strict requirements surrounding providing notice to counsel of the contents of notes sent out by the jury:

Here, on the morning of the first day of deliberations, the Supreme Court received three notes from the jury requesting, among other things, “Judge’s reading of charges of 1st degree & the 4 things we must prove to reach a guilty [verdict] . . . Same thing for 2nd Degree . . . Definition of unreasonable doubt.” The jury also requested the transcript of the testifying accomplice’s testimony. The court did not read the contents of these notes into the record, and there is no indication in the record that the entire contents of the notes otherwise were shared with counsel. Rather, after receiving the notes, the court explained its intended responses to defense counsel and the prosecutor, and then, in the presence of the jury, provided a readback of the requested charges. * * *

Meaningful notice of the content of a jury note “means notice of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request” (People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d at 277…). Where the record fails to establish that the trial court provided counsel with “meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry, a mode of proceedings error occurs, and reversal is therefore required even in the absence of an objection” … . Because the record here fails to establish that the Supreme Court provided counsel with meaningful notice of the precise content of the subject jury notes, we must reverse the defendant’s convictions and order a new trial. People v Gedeon, 2018 NY Slip Op 04751, Second Dept 6-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/O’RAMA (JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/CPL 310.30   (JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the court attorney referee was not authorized to determine a contested family offense petition or custody and visitation issues:

A referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311, 4317…). Here, as correctly asserted by the mother, the order of reference did not authorize the Court Attorney Referee to hear and report or to hear and determine a contested family offense petition. The Court Attorney Referee therefore lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the mother’s family offense petition in this instance… . Accordingly, the family offense matter must be remitted to a judge of the Family Court for a new determination.

With respect to the determination of custody, the order of reference recited that, upon the parties’ stipulation, a court attorney referee is authorized to hear and determine the parties’ rights to custody of and visitation with the child, including the determination of motions and temporary orders of custody. Upon our review of the record, however, we find no indication that the parties stipulated to the reference in the manner prescribed by CPLR 2104, and, absent such stipulation, the Court Attorney Referee had the power only to hear and report her findings … . We further find that the mother did not consent to the reference merely by participating in the proceeding without expressing her desire to have the matter tried before a judge … . The order of reference must therefore be deemed an order to hear and report. Thus, the Court Attorney Referee had no jurisdiction to determine, but only to hear and report, with respect to the parties’ respective rights of custody and visitation … . Matter of Rose v Simon, 2018 NY Slip Op 04736, Second Dept 6-27-18

​FAMILY LAW (COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4311, 4317, 2104 (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/REFEREES  (FAMILY LAW, COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))

/

PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ (truck owner’s and driver’s) motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured by the rear portion of a tractor trailer which had completed 85% of a right turn:

… [T]he plaintiff allegedly was walking on a sidewalk … . After she stepped off the sidewalk onto the street, her right foot came into contact with the rear of a tractor-trailer that was making a right turn. … The plaintiff allegedly did not see the tractor-trailer prior to the impact. …

… [T]he plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . The evidence … established that the plaintiff failed to see what was there to be seen and walked into the path of the rear of the tractor-trailer. Faulknor v Gina’s Trucking, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01045, Second Dept 2-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (PEDESTRIANS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIANS, PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

TOWN PROPERLY DISSOLVED THE EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CREATED TWO NEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissenting opinion, determined the Town of Champion had properly dissolved the existing fire protection district (FPD) and replaced it with two new FPD’s. The dissent argued the existing FPD had not been properly dissolved, but rather was merely divided:

… [P]etitioners claim that respondent failed to accomplish and complete the dissolution of the Town of Champion Fire Protection District as required by the General Municipal Law. On the facts of this case, we conclude that respondent’s actions are not affected by an error of law because it prepared, approved, and implemented a dissolution plan in compliance with the applicable statutory requirements, and lawfully created two legally distinct fire protection districts to deliver fire protection services to the Town of Champion residents, in accordance with Town Law section 170. Matter of Waite v Town of Champion, 2018 NY Slip Op 04688, CtApp 6-27-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS, TOWN PROPERLY DISSOLVED THE EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CREATED TWO NEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS (CT APP))/FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS (MUNICIPAL LAW, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS, TOWN PROPERLY DISSOLVED THE EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CREATED TWO NEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS (CT APP))/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS, TOWN PROPERLY DISSOLVED THE EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CREATED TWO NEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS (CT APP))/TOWN LAW  (FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS, TOWN PROPERLY DISSOLVED THE EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CREATED TWO NEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS (CT APP))

/ ,

LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the Westchester County Solid Waste Commission properly found that petitioner had not obtained a permit to allow the transport of waste within Westchester County and imposed a $15,000 fine. Petitioner had obtained a permit from the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and argued that the Westchester County law was preempted by the state law and violated the Commerce Clause. The Second Department rejected those arguments:

“The constitutional home rule provision confers broad police power upon local government relating to the welfare of its citizens”… . In instances where the State has demonstrated its intent to preempt an entire field and preclude any further local regulation, a local law that regulates the same subject matter is considered inconsistent and will not be given effect. “It is . . . well settled that, if a town or other local government is otherwise authorized to legislate, it is not forbidden to do so unless the State, expressly or impliedly, has evinced an unmistakable desire to avoid the possibility that the local legislation will not be on all fours with that of the State” … . The legislature’s intent to preempt a particular area can be inferred from a declaration of policy or from a comprehensive and detailed scheme in a particular area … . However, the fact that State and local laws touch upon the same area is insufficient to support a determination that the State law has preempted the entire field of regulation in a given area … .

In Monroe-Livingston Sanitary Landfill v Town of Caledonia (51 NY2d 679, 683-684), the Court of Appeals held that the State had not preempted the field of waste management through the solid waste disposal provisions that then existed in the Environmental Conservation Law. Eight years after the decision in Monroe-Livingston, the Legislature added the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 (hereinafter the Act) to the Environmental Conservation Law. Had the Legislature intended to preempt the local regulation of solid waste management, it could have expressly said so in the Act. Matter of MVM Constr., LLC v Westchester County Solid Waste Commn., 2018 NY Slip Op 04731, Second Dept 6-27-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT))/WASTE (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND 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