You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IS A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT WORKING FOR A NONDOMICILIARY EMPLOYER, SHE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE REGULAR VISITS TO HER EMPLOYER’S CLIENT IN NEW YORK CITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY HARASSED, IN NEW YORK CITY, BY THE CLIENT’S EMPLOYEE; BECAUSE THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT “HAD AN IMPACT IN NEW YORK,” NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York had jurisdiction over this employment discrimination action brought under the NYS Human Rights Law and the NYC Human Rights Law. The plaintiff is a New Jersey resident and Ethicon, alleged to be her employer, is a New Jersey corporation. Plaintiff alleged she was assigned to a sales account for Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. which required her to meet regularly with an manager at Mount Sinai in New York City. Plaintiff alleged Ethicon knew that she would be subject to sexual harassment by the Mount Sinai manager. The First Department held that the term “employer” in the Human Rights Law included the nondomiciliary Ethicon because the discriminatory conduct at issue “had an impact in New York.” ​

​… [T]he issue here is how we should interpret the State HRL’s definition of an “employer” as used in the phrase “all employers within the state” for purposes of liability under the State HRL (Executive Law § 292 [5]). The motion court read this definition as requiring an employer to have a physical presence in New York and therefore found both the State HRL and the City HRL inapplicable to Ethicon, “a New Jersey employer of [plaintiff,] a New Jersey resident.”  * * *

… [T]he Court of Appeals in Hoffman v Parade Publs. (15 NY3d 285 [2010]), adopted an impact test for nonresidents who seek the protection of the City HRL and found that test “relatively simple for courts to apply and litigants to follow, leads to predictable results, and confines the protections of the City HRL to those who are meant to be protected—those who work in the city” …. . * * *

Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether the alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact in New York regardless of the residency of the parties. Here, plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleges that Ethicon, her nondomiciliary employer, assigned her to service a New York-based account, requiring her regular presence at Mount Sinai’s hospital where the alleged traumatic sexual harassment occurred. Plaintiff further alleges that Ethicon was aware of the harassment and nevertheless required her to continue the assignment because of the account’s importance. At the pleading stage, plaintiff’s allegations, among other discriminatory acts, that her Ethicon manager discouraged her from complaining and “coached her to ‘lean into’ the sexual harassment so Mount Sinai would continue using Ethicon’s services” are more than sufficient to allege sexual discriminatory conduct having a concrete impact on plaintiff within New York to confer subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s residency outside New York does not preclude application of the State HRL or City HRL where the alleged misconduct occurred in New York City and affected plaintiff while she was working there. Arizzo v Ethicon, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03262, First Dept 5-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into subject matter jurisdiction under the NYC and NYS Human Rights Law. If a nonresident employee of a nondomiciliary corporation, as part of her job, meets regularly with a client in New York City and is sexually harassed by the client, New York has subject matter jurisdiction over Human Rights Law causes of action.​

 

, ,

A SERIES OF REMARKS MADE BY HIS SERGEANT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE REMARKS WERE MOTIVATED BY RACIAL ANIMUS; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s racial discrimination complaint pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiff stated a cause of action for racial discrimination under the City HRL (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). … [Sergeant Martin] Toczek made many statements, both in the office of the NYPD Auto Crimes Unit and on a text thread with his subordinates including plaintiff, criticizing racial justice protests in the National Football League by Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players. On one occasion, plaintiff, who is Black, stated to Toczek that the players had a constitutional right to protest, and Toczek replied, “yeah, . . .but it’s my right . . . if I want to like [B]lack people.” Toczek also shared articles about Black NFL players committing crimes and described them as “perps.”

… Toczek directed plaintiff to accompany two White detectives in apprehending an arrestee who “had a history of assaulting police officers who tried to arrest him.” The arrestee had previously assaulted Dan Fox, a white Auto Crimes Unit detective. Plaintiff was on restricted duty at the time because of a shoulder injury and could not carry a gun or a shield. Toczek told plaintiff not to worry because, “[w]hen he sees you, he’s not going to fight, look how big you are,” and further suggested that the arrestee would not assault plaintiff “because, look at [Fox], look at him and look at you.” Plaintiff is 6’7″ and weighs about 260 pounds. Plaintiff suffered a serious injury when the arrestee resisted arrest; he retired shortly afterward with accidental disability benefits for his line-of-duty injury. * * *

… [I]t is a jury issue as to whether Toczek’s other comments about the NFL reflected racial animus. A reasonable juror could conclude that, once Toczek signaled that his objection to the protests was at least in part about race, every other reference to the protests and the NFL became infused with racial animus. * * *

The complaint … sufficiently alleges that Toczek’s assignment of plaintiff to the potentially dangerous arrest was “motivated at least in part by” plaintiff’s race … . * * *

… [A] reasonable juror could interpret Toczek’s assertion that plaintiff’s appearance, including his size, would deter violence from the arrestee, as an attempt to invoke the “classic and common racist trope that Black men are inherently threatening or dangerous” … . Taylor v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03128, First Dept 5-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when remarks made over a period of years by a supervisor in the work place can raise a question of fact about whether the remarks were motivated by racial animus and constituted violations of the NYC Human Rights Law.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO MENTION THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) COMPONENT OF THE SENTENCE RENDERS THE PLEA UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s plea, determined the judge never informed the defendant of the postrelease supervision (PRS) component of the sentence. The court noted that the issue may be raised for the first time on appeal. The issue need not be preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the conviction:

The record does not establish that the court advised defendant when he pleaded guilty that the sentence would include a period of PRS. Consequently, the plea “cannot be deemed knowing, voluntary and intelligent” … , and it must be vacated.

Where a trial judge does not fulfill the obligation to advise a defendant of PRS during the plea allocution, “the defendant may challenge the plea as not knowing, voluntary and intelligent on direct appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a post-allocution motion” … . The prosecution’s reference to its offer of PRS at the plea proceeding does not change this conclusion where the court itself never mentioned PRS at the plea proceeding … . Similarly, defendant’s failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction does not bar him from raising the issue at this time. People v Ndiaye, 2026 NY Slip Op 03080, First Dept 5-14-26

Practice Point: A guilty plea is not “knowing, voluntary and intelligent” if the judge fails to mention the postrelease supervision (PRS) component of the sentence.

 

, ,

AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP, THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S AUTOMOBILE FOR EVIDENCE OF DWI; DURING THE SEARCH THE POLICE OPENED A CLOSED BOX AND DISCOVERED A FIREARM; REVERSING SUPREME COURT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH FOR ALCOHOL IN THE CLOSED BOX (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court on the People’s appeal, determined the police, after a traffic stop, had probable cause to search the defendant’s car for evidence of DWI. The police therefore had probable cause to open a closed box which could have contained alcohol, but in fact contained a firearm:

… Supreme Court credited the officers’ testimony that the defendant apparently had been drinking, and those factual findings and credibility determinations are entitled to great deference on appeal … . Thus, the police had probable cause to search the vehicle for evidence of the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a misdemeanor.

“If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search” … , which may include closed containers … “found therein in which there was probable cause to believe that the [contraband] may be found” … .

The scope of a warrantless search of a vehicle is defined not by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted, but by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found … . The relevant inquiry here is not whether the cardboard box could physically hold an open container of alcohol, but whether there was reason to believe that it did … .

Here the cardboard box containing the gun was unsealed and heavy, indicating it was not empty. Further the defendant moved his hands under the seat when he was stopped, indicating he may have been secreting contraband in the box. The issue was whether that search could extend to the cardboard box. The label on the box stating that it originally contained “lithium battery portable power station” was not particularly significant since the box was not new, was unsealed, and was of a size and shape that could store a variety of objects, including an alcohol bottle or a gun.  People v Perry, 2026 NY Slip Op 03005, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Upon a traffic stop, evidence the driver had been drinking authorized a warrantless search of every part of the car for alcohol. Because there was reason to believe a closed box could contain alcohol, the police were authorized to search the box and seize the firearm inside.

 

, ,

IF A DEFENDANT CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF HIS ARREST, THE PEOPLE MUST PROVE THE ARREST WAS BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE; THE ISSUANCE OF AN I-CARD DEMONSTRATING PROBABLE CAUSE IS NOT, BY ITSELF, ENOUGH; THERE MUST BE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DEMONSTRATING THE ARREST WAS IN FACT BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THE I-CARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his statements, determined the People did not prove the legality of defendant’s arrest at the suppression hearing. An I-card demonstrating probable cause for defendant’s arrest had been issued by the police two months before the arrest. But no one testified that the arrest was based upon the information in the I-card:

At a suppression hearing, a detective testified that he had generated still images and wanted flyers from a video of the alleged robbery, circulated the still images and wanted flyers throughout the police department, and activated an I-card for the defendant’s arrest, and that the defendant was apprehended by the Queens Warrant Squad nearly two months later. The arresting officers did not testify at the suppression hearing, nor did the detective testify about the circumstances of the arrest. After the hearing, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the first degree. The defendant appeals.

When a defendant challenges the admission of statements he or she has made, claiming they are the product of an illegal arrest, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance … . Under the fellow officer rule, a police officer can make a lawful arrest even without personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, so long as the officer is acting upon the direction of an officer in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest … .

Here, the People failed to present evidence sufficient to establish that the arresting officers stopped and arrested the defendant on probable cause allegedly communicated by the I-card … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the issuance of an I-card nearly two months before the defendant’s arrest, standing alone, was insufficient to establish that the officers who stopped and detained the defendant were actually acting upon the direction of an officer in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause … . People v Moreno, 2026 NY Slip Op 03004, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: The existence of an I-card does not, by itself, demonstrate an arrest was based on probable cause. There must be testimony by the arresting officer that the arrest was, in fact, based upon the information in the I-card.

 

, , ,

EVEN IF DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, THE JUDGE SO INFORMED HIM AND HE ACKNOWEDGED THE CONSEQUENCES ON THE RECORD; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO SHOW HE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea on ineffective assistance grounds should have been denied. Even if defense counsel had failed to inform defendant of the deportation-consequences of his guilty plea, the defendant was made aware of them by the judge:

The defendant failed to establish, sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing, that his counsel’s allegedly deficient advice deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel under either the federal or state constitutional standards … . It is clear from the record of the plea proceeding that prior to accepting the plea, the court advised the defendant that he may be subject to deportation as a result of his plea of guilty. The defendant acknowledged his understanding thereof and confirmed that he wished to plead guilty. Under the circumstances of this case, even if defense counsel had failed to advise the defendant of the possible immigration consequences of pleading guilty, the defendant was indisputably aware of those possible consequences before he entered his favorable plea … . Accordingly, the defendant cannot show prejudice resulting from defense counsel’s alleged failure to provide that advice himself … , and there is no reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but for defense counsel’s alleged deficiency … .  People v Lewis, 2026 NY Slip Op 03001, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Here defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel should have been denied without a hearing. Even if defense counsel was ineffective in failing to inform defendant of the deportation consequences of his plea, defendant was not prejudiced because the judge so informed him.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH RPTL 421-A DOES NOT EXPLICITLY ALLOW JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE COMPTROLLER’S TAX RULINGS, THE CASE LAW SUPPORTS THE AVAILABILITY OF ARTICLE 78 REVIEW; THEREFORE THE STATUTE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined RPTL 421-a (16) (c) (x) does not foreclose judicial review of the Comptroller’s rulings concerning certain tax benefits available to property developers who provide affordable housing and pay construction workers at the statutory rate. Although the statute does not explicitly allow judicial review, the case law supports the conclusion that Article 78 review is available:​

… Supreme Court has broad authority to provide relief from an administrative determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, both during the pendency of the proceeding and following the completion of judicial review … . During the pendency of such a proceeding, the court may “stay . . . the enforcement of [the] determination under review” (CPLR 7805 …). Correspondingly, once judicial review is complete, the reviewing court is authorized to “annul or confirm . . . or modify” the determination “in whole or part” and may “direct. . . specified action by the respondent” (CPLR 7806). The court’s authority under CPLR 7806 to direct specified action by the respondent agency encompasses “any . . . directions needed to secure to the petitioner the [a]rticle 78 relief ordered” and a court’s judgment embodying those directions “is enforceable by contempt proceedings” … . In other words, if a reviewing court found the Comptroller’s final determination under RPTL 421-a (16) (c) (x) to have been made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, arbitrary and capricious or lacking in substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [3], [4]), it would have broad remedial power under CPLR 7806 to annul the Comptroller’s determination, which would, in effect, render the underlying administrative judgment unenforceable, and could also direct the Comptroller to take action to secure the vacatur of the administrative judgment. Matter of Bldg 44 Devs. LLC v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02898, Third Dept 5-7-26

Practice Point: Even where a statute does not explicitly allow judicial review, the case law may support Article 78 review, rendering the statute constitutional.

 

,

NEW YORK’S “TOLLING” PROVISION FOR PREDICATE FELONIES REQUIRES ONLY A MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION TO DETERMINE HOW LONG THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK IS EXTENDED BY PERIODS OF A DEFENDANT’S INCARCERATION; THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED FOR A JURY TO MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS BEFORE THE LOOK-BACK CALCULATION CAN BE MADE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined that New York “tolling provision,” which extends the ten-year look-back for predicate felonies by the amount of time defendant was incarcerated, is a purely mathematical calculation that does not require consideration by a jury:

…New York’s tolling provision requires a determination of whether the defendant was incarcerated and, if so, the dates of incarceration (see Penal Law §§ 70.06[1][b][iv],[v]; 70.08[1][b]). Thus, the tolling provision requires “rote arithmetic calculation to be made based on certified public records” … . The determination is completely objective. There is no assessment of defendant’s conduct or culpability. Rather, it is a determination of the amount of time a defendant was incarcerated between a previous conviction and the instant offense. There need only be a review of the official records of incarceration—i.e., when the defendant was admitted into the facility, when the defendant was released and any time in between. People v Young, 2026 NY Slip Op 02883, First Dept 5-7-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the nature and application of New York’s predicate-felony “tolling” provision.

 

, , , ,

UPON RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, FAMILY COURT DISMISSED RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL AND HELD THE ORDER-OF-PROTECTION HEARING IN RESPONDENT’S ABSENCE; RESPONDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ORDER VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, vacated the order of protection issued upon respondent’s “default” based on the denial of respondent’s due process rights:

Petitioner commenced this proceeding in November 2023 seeking an order of protection against respondent. After an initial appearance and subsequent conferences at which the parties variously appeared virtually, in person or through counsel, respondent failed to appear for the April 2024 in-person hearing. Family Court directed respondent’s counsel to leave the courtroom, at which point respondent’s counsel offered to have respondent appear virtually, asserting that respondent was in “hiding” in light of criminal charges filed against petitioner in connection with her alleged stalking of, and firing a rifle at, respondent in August 2023. The court implicitly denied respondent’s request by again directing respondent’s counsel out of the courtroom. The hearing proceeded, during which petitioner testified and was subject to cross-examination by the attorney for petitioner’s children. …

Typically, “[a] party seeking to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying claim” … . “No such showing is required, however, where a party’s fundamental due process rights have been denied” … . In this case, respondent’s counsel attended in person evidently ready to proceed, offered an excuse for respondent’s nonappearance and provided an alternate means to move forward in his absence … . Respondent’s counsel made no application to withdraw, and Family Court did not relieve respondent’s counsel, and thus respondent’s attorneys remained counsel of record when they were dismissed from the courtroom without explanation (see CPLR 321 [b] …). The court’s atypical conduct in that regard, coupled with the court’s choice to decline available options to proceed in respondent’s absence, deprived respondent of his opportunity to be heard (see CPLR 321 [a] …). Matter of April V. v Jonathan U., 2026 NY Slip Op 02702, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: An order issued upon a party’s default may be vacated when the party’s due process rights were violated by the judge. Here the judge ordered the party’s counsel to leave and held the hearing in the party’s absence after the counsel explained the party’s absence and offered to proceed virtually.

 

, , , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE EMPANELING OF AN ANONYMOUS JURY CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury:

… [D]efendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when County Court empaneled an anonymous jury. In support of his motion, defendant submitted the affidavit of his trial counsel, who acknowledged that the decision to empanel an anonymous jury “did not sound right” at the time, but that he did not become aware that this was possibly a reversible error until April 2024, when this Court handed down Heidrich [.226 AD3d 1096]. Defendant’s trial counsel further stated that he “had not researched the issue before . . . trial” and that the “failure to object was not a result of any strategy on [his] part.” Although the People contend that the leading case on the anonymous jury issue existed prior to defendant’s trial and had not been expanded upon by Heidrich, the People acknowledge on appeal that “the empaneling of an anonymous jury in violation of CPL 270.15 constitutes a per se denial of a defendant’s right to a fair trial that cannot be subjected to harmless error analysis.” Indeed, a single error may qualify as ineffective assistance where it “compromise[s] a defendant’s right to a fair trial” … , particularly where, like here, the jurors were only identified by numbers and the record fails to reveal whether their names were ever provided to defense counsel — “which materially heightens the risk of prejudice” … . Accordingly, under the unique circumstances of this particular case and where the legal basis for the motion is undisputed through sworn allegations (see CPL 440.30 [3]), we substitute our discretion for that of the motion court and grant defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction … . As such, remittal for a new trial is required. People v Rahaman, 2026 NY Slip Op 02696, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Defense counsel’s failure to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury can amount to ineffective assistance and warrant a new trial in the absence of preservation.

 

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