You are here: / Constitutional Law
, ,

THE SIX-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S SEXUAL-MISCONDUCT GUILTY PLEA AND THE SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT HEARING DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge concurrence, determined that the six-year delay between defendant’s guilty plea to sexual misconduct and the SORA risk-level assessment hearing did not deprive defendant of his right to due process of law:

Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual misconduct, a sex offense requiring registration under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Nevertheless, defendant was not notified of his SORA registration requirements, and approximately six years passed from the time of his plea before this mistake was brought to the attention of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. After a full, albeit delayed, SORA proceeding, defendant was designated a level one sex offender, the least restrictive designation available, with the required twenty-year registration period ordered nunc pro tunc from the date of his release. Defendant claims that the delay between his plea and his SORA hearing violated his substantive due process rights. We disagree and hold that defendant failed to make the required showing that the delay prejudiced his ability to present his case to the SORA court and for that reason, we affirm. People v Collier, 2026 NY Slip Op 00074, CtApp 1-8-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a discussion of the substantive and procedural due process protections raised by a six-year delay in holding a SORA risk-level assessment hearing.

 

, , , ,

THE PEOPLE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING BUT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE THE ORDER DENYING A SUPPRESSION HEARING INCLUDED THE PHRASE “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW UPON A SHOWING OF SUFFICIENT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS” RENDERING THE ORDER NONFINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT NO OTHER EVIDENCE CAME TO LIGHT WHICH COULD HAVE SUPPORTED A RENEWAL MOTION; THE ORDER WAS THEREFORE DEEMED FINAL AND APPEALABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, holding defendant’s plea and sentencing in abeyance, remitted the matter for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing to determine whether the seizure of a gun dropped by the defendant was facilitated by unlawful police conduct. In the omnibus motions defendant argued that he dropped the gun as a spontaneous response to the police officers’ approaching and then chasing him without reasonable suspicion. On appeal, the People agreed defendant was entitled to a hearing. The contested issue on appeal was whether the order denying the suppression motion “with leave to renew upon a showing of sufficient factual allegations” rendered the order nonfinal and therefore unappealable. The First Department determined the order was final:

The issue in contention on this appeal is whether the court’s summary denial of defendant’s suppression motion — which ended with the statement that the motion “is denied, with leave to renew upon a showing of sufficient factual allegations” — qualifies as an “order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence” which would preserve the suppression issue for appeal under CPL 710.70(2). While phrases like “leave to renew” or “leave to submit” may be some indicia of a lack of finality under CPL 710.70(2), they do not, standing alone, render a court’s ruling nonfinal. * * *

… [T]he court incorrectly rejected the defendant’s detailed recitation of his suppression theory and there was no further evidence produced by the People that could bolster defendant’s theory on renewal.

Accordingly, we remit to Supreme Court to hold a Mapp/Dunaway hearing. People v Diaby, 2025 NY Slip Op 07343, First Dept 12-30-25

Practice Point: Here the People argued that the order denying a suppression hearing was nonfinal and therefore unappealable because it included the phrase “with leave to renew upon a showing of sufficient factual allegations.” The First Department noted that this was not a case where additional evidence came to light which would have supported renewal and the defendant failed to make a renewal motion. Here no new evidence came to light. The denial of the suppression motion was therefore deemed a final, appealable order.

 

, , ,

EVERY STATEMENT DEFENDANT MADE AFTER HE TOLD THE OFFICERS “I AIN’T GOT NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT” SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant had unequivocally asserted his right to remain silent and all statements defendant made thereafter should have been suppressed:

After defendant indicated that he understood [the Miranda] rights, the officer asked whether defendant would agree to waive them and speak to the officer. Defendant did not respond in the affirmative. Instead, he said, “I ain’t got nothing to talk about. I just want to go to jail. I want to go to sleep.” * * *

… [D]efendant said in no uncertain terms that he did not want to talk to the officer and instead wanted to be taken to jail … , and “[n]o reasonable police officer could have interpreted that statement as anything other than a desire not to talk to the police” … . The officer nevertheless continued to ask defendant questions that were “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response” … . Under the circumstances, we conclude that the court’s determination that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent is “unsupported by the record” … . People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 07158, Fourth Dept 12-23-25

Practice Point: If a defendant tells the police “I ain’t got nothing to talk about” and the police continue questioning him, that is a Miranda violation requiring suppression.

 

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE 16-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT IN THIS MURDER CASE WAS LIABLE AS AN ACCOMPLICE, ACCOMPLICE-LIABILITY STANDING ALONE DOES NOT PRECLUDE REMOVAL TO FAMILY COURT; A GUILTY PLEA DOES NOT FORFEIT AN APPELLATE CHALLENGE TO THE DENIAL OF REMOVAL; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT PURPORTED TO FORECLOSE ALL APPELLATE CHALLENGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, over a two-justice dissent, determined (1) defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because it purported to foreclose all appellate challenges; and (2) the statutory procedure for removing the 16-year-old defendant’s prosecution to Family Court was violated. The fact that defendant was charged as an accomplice in this carjacking/murder case did not disqualify the defendant from the removal procedure. Once the removal procedure is started, the People have 30 days to demonstrate removal is not appropriate. The majority disagreed with the dissent’s argument that the “removal-to-Family-Court-issue” was forfeited by defendant’s guilty plea:

Defendant orally waived his right to appeal and executed a written waiver thereof. The language in the written waiver, however, is “inaccurate and misleading insofar as it purports to impose ‘an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal’ and to deprive defendant of his ‘attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief, [as well as] all postconviction relief separate from the direct appeal’ ” … . * * *

Defendant contends that the court erred in concluding that the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant “caused significant physical injury to a person other than a participant in the offense” (CPL 722.23 [2] [c] [i]) and that defendant was therefore disqualified from having the matter transferred to Family Court. Initially, we respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleagues that defendant’s contention is forfeited by his guilty plea. It is undisputed that a guilty plea does not “extinguish every claim on appeal” and that the issues that are not forfeited by the plea generally “relate either to jurisdictional matters . . . or to rights of a constitutional dimension that go to the very heart of the process” … . * * *

The plain language of CPL 722.23 (2) (c) supports the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend for the circumstances disqualifying an adolescent offender from removal to Family Court to be coextensive with criminal liability, including principles of accessorial liability, for a statutorily designated violent crime. Indeed, such a result could have been achieved by disqualifying adolescent offenders based solely on the crime charged without reference to any further factors. People v Jacobs, 2025 NY Slip Op 07124, Fourth Dept 12-23-25

Practice Point: Here the 16-year-old defendant should not have been denied removal to Family Court solely based on accomplice liability for murder. The right to challenge the denial of removal was not forfeited by defendant’s guilty plea. The waiver of appeal was invalid because it purported to foreclose all appellate challenges.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; NEW HEARINGS AND TRIAL ORDERED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering new hearings and a new trial, determined defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent:

Defendant’s criminal history, which included drug possession and sale convictions dating back to 1992, and his in-court remarks regarding his history of substance abuse issues and present drug use constituted a “red flag” which should have triggered at least a brief inquiry into defendant’s mental capacity and comprehension of the proceedings … . The record also does not “affirmatively disclose” that the court “delved into [] defendant’s age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver” … . As the trial judge was only assigned to defendant’s case about a month before trial, this was not a case where the judge “had numerous opportunities to see and hear defendant firsthand” to evaluate his knowledge and familiarity with the criminal justice system … .

Moreover, the court’s colloquy did not “accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … . Although defendant correctly recited the charges against him, he also suggested that he could get convicted of additional charges, and the record does not reflect that he was ever informed of the potential aggregate sentence he faced after trial … . The court reminded defendant that he was “not trained as a lawyer” and did not “understand about cross-examination,” so it was “dangerous” and not in his best interests to proceed pro se; these “brief, generalized warnings do not satisfy the requirement for a searching inquiry” … . “The court failed to warn defendant about the numerous pitfalls of representing himself before and at trial, such as unfamiliarity with legal terms, concepts, and case names; the potential challenges of cross-examining witnesses and delivering an opening statement and summation as a pro se criminal defendant” … . People v Rivera, 2025 NY Slip Op 07231, First Dept 12-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what a judge must explain to a defendant seeking to waive the right to counsel.

 

, , , ,

A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED TO BIND CURRENT AND FUTURE TOWN OFFICIALS TO A REZONING REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIOLATED THE “TERM LIMITS DOCTRINE” AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a three-judge concurrence, determined that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which purported to bind current and future municipal officials to plaintiff’s rezoning request for a real estate development project violated the term limits doctrine and was unenforceable:​

“The term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so” … . It recognizes that “[e]lected officials must be free to exercise legislative and governmental powers in accordance with their own discretion and ordinarily may not do so in a manner that limits the same discretionary right of their successors” … . The doctrine thus instructs “that where a contract ‘involves a matter of discretion to be exercised by the [municipal body,] unless the statute conferring power to contract clearly authorizes th[at body] to make a contract extending beyond its own term, no power . . . so to do exists’ ” … . The term limits doctrine reaches only “matters relating to governmental or legislative functions” … and does not apply where the municipality is “acting in its proprietary capacity” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that by entering into the MOU, the Town Board violated the term limits doctrine by purporting to “limit” a “discretionary right of [its] successors,” rendering the MOU invalid and unenforceable … . Absent an enforceable agreement, plaintiff’s contractual claims fail as a matter of law. Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill, 2025 NY Slip Op 07080, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: Here an attempt to bind current and future municipal officials to a rezoning request for a real estate development project was deemed unenforceable because it violated the “term limits doctrine.” Consult this opinion for insight into how the “term limits doctrine” is applied.​

 

, , ,

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).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined a driver, Monaghan, whose license was automatically suspended when he refused to submit to a chemical test at the time he was arrested for DWI, was not denied due process rights when the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) revoked his license despite the arresting officers’ failure to appear at the revocation hearing. Monaghan had subpoenaed the officers and argued he was denied his right to cross-examine them. The Court of Appeal noted that Monaghan could have sought to enforce the subpoenas but chose not to. The Court found that the procedure for enforcement of subpoenas is not unduly burdensome. Therefore requiring Monaghan to use that procedure to exercise his right to cross-examine the officers does not amount to a denial of due process:

… [W]e reject the contention that Mr. Monaghan’s was deprived of his due process right to cross-examine the Troopers. His private interest in retaining his driver’s license and the government’s interest in public safety are both significant. The due process analysis, here, turns on the benefit and burden of requiring a motorist to seek judicial enforcement of a subpoena. Mr. Monaghan chose not to avail himself of the process set forth in CPLR 2308 (b). The process of applying to enforce a nonjudicial subpoena is not so unduly burdensome as to constitute a deprivation of due process of law. Our holding is consistent with appellate courts’ decisions rejecting due process challenges in other types of administrative proceedings where the petitioner has not attempted to enforce a subpoena … . It is undisputed that Mr. Monaghan did not seek enforcement, nor did he request an adjournment to do so. Matter of Monaghan v Schroeder, 2025 NY Slip Op 06959, CtApp 12-16-25

Practice Point: Here the officers who arrested the driver for DWI did not appear at the license revocation hearing. The driver argued his inability to cross-examine the officers deprived him of due process of law. However, the driver had subpoenaed the officers. He could have used the CPLR 2308 (b) procedure for enforcing the subpoenas but chose not to. The availability of the enforcement procedure was deemed sufficient process.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS HIRED BY DEFENDANT TEMPLE AS A “FULL TIME JEWISH EDUCATOR,” WAS FIRED AFTER WRITING A BLOG POST CRITICIZING ISRAEL AND ZIONISM; PLAINTIFF SUED ALLEGING HER FIRING WAS A VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW; THE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS THE LABOR-LAW-VIOLATION THEORY FINDING THAT THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” PRECLUDED THE APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND ITS MINISTERS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two concurrences, determined the ministerial exception precluded this employment discrimination action brought by plaintiff, a “full time Jewish educator” employed by the Westchester Reform Temple. Plaintiff was fired after writing a blog post criticizing Israel and Zionism. She alleged her firing was a violation of Labor Law 201-d (2) which prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an employee based on legal “recreational activities.” The court did not address the viability of the Labor-Law theory. The court held that plaintiff’s lawsuit was precluded by the ministerial exception, which precludes application of employment discrimination laws to relationships between a religious institution and its ministers:

We need not resolve today questions such as whether the [Labor Law 201-d (2)] covers blogging specifically or public expression generated during any protected activity, because the ministerial exception dispositively bars Plaintiff’s claim. That exception “precludes application of [employment discrimination] legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers” … . Requiring a religious institution “to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing [them] for failing to do so” both “infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments” and “violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions” … . * * *

Defendants invoked the ministerial exception here as grounds for dismissal on a CPLR 3211 (a) (1) motion. Such a motion “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Defendants rely on Plaintiff’s offer letter, which is appended as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss. It states that Plaintiff was responsible for guiding the development of programs such as “Shabbat, Havdalah, and other teen led events and initiatives”; planning, supporting, and attending “Confirmation” experiences; and supporting the “Rabbi’s Table initiative.” In her fifteen weekly hours of teaching, she was responsible for “Chevruta (1:1 tutoring for our learners),” “Pre-bimah tutoring,” and “Parsha of the week.” And she was responsible for furthering the Temple’s “mission,” including by “support[ing] the development of a strong Jewish identity” and “bringing Torah to life and inspiring Jewish dreams.” Sander v Westchester Reform Temple, 2025 NY Slip Op 06958, CtApp 12-16-25

Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” precludes the application of employment discrimination laws to the relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. Here the ministerial exception precluded a suit alleging plaintiff was fired from her teaching job at the defendant temple for a blog post criticizing Israel and Zionism.

 

, , , , ,

REMITTAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE SORA RISK-LEVEL-ASSESSEMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD BY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THAT AN AVAILABLE GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS NOT RAISED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined (1) appellate review of the SORA risk-level assessment was precluded by the judge’s failure to place on the record its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by the Correction Law, and (2) defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel in that there was a ground for a downward departure which was not raised. Defendant was assessed 30 points based on a prior conviction for endangering the welfare of a child. However there was no sexual offense involved in that conviction and a downward departure was therefore possible:

“The failure to include the necessary findings prevents this Court from conducting a meaningful appellate review of defendant’s designation as a risk level two sex offender and would, alone, require remittal for County Court to comply with the statute” (… see Correction Law § 168-n [3] …). * * *

… County Court was required to assess 30 points under risk factor 9 based upon defendant’s undisputed prior conviction of endangering the welfare of a child, “without regard to whether the underlying offense involved conduct that is sexual in nature” … . This is because “[t]he Board decided to treat endangering the welfare of a child as if it were a sex crime because it generally involves sexual misconduct, especially when it is part of a plea bargained disposition” … . However, the risk assessment guidelines also provide that, “[w]here a review of the record indicates that there was no such [sexual] misconduct, a departure may be warranted” … . People v Pribble, 2025 NY Slip Op 06936, Third Dept 12-11-25

Practice Point: If a SORA risk-level-assessment is not supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law in the record appellate review is not possible and remittal is required.

Practice Point: If, as here, there is an available ground for a downward departure which is not raised, the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel.

 

, ,

THE ALLEGATION THE LAW ENFORCEMENT DEFENDANTS PRESENTED FALSE TESTIMONY DURING PLANTIFFS’ PROSECUTIONS STATED A VALID FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ cause of action alleging defendants violated 42 USC 1983 by presenting false testimony during the course of plaintiffs’ prosecution should not have been dismissed:

Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the cause of action alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 as was predicated on a violation of the plaintiffs’ due process rights enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution insofar as asserted against the individual defendants. The plaintiffs’ allegations that, during the course of their prosecution, the individual defendants presented false testimony were governed by the Fourteenth Amendment … . Thus, contrary to the defendants’ contention, a due process analysis was appropriate … . Batista v City of Yonkers, 2025 NY Slip Op 06592, Second Dept 11-26-25

Practice Point: An allegation that law enforcement officers presented false testimony during plaintiffs’ prosecutions stated a 42 USC 1983 violation-of-due-process cause of action.

 

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