You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , ,

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT DOES NOT RENDER THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGES FOR JUDGES UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals determined the mandatory retirement ages for judges (70 and 76) do not violate the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and do not constitute “age discrimination:”

Members of the judiciary in New York State have been subject to a mandatory retirement age since the adoption of our first State Constitution in 1777. In the current Constitution, article VI, § 25 (b) mandates retirement at 70 years old, with an opportunity for certain judges and justices to serve until age 76. Petitioners, former and sitting justices of the New York State Courts, contend that this provision was implicitly repealed by the Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”) of 2024, which amended article I, § 11 to add, inter alia, age to the classes protected from discrimination in the exercise of civil rights. Petitioners argue that as a result of this alleged implicit repeal, Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115, which together implement the constitutional mandatory retirement age cap and certification system set forth in article VI, § 25 (b), are now unconstitutional. However, we have long held that implied repeal is disfavored … . The text, purpose, and history of these constitutional provisions establish that they operate independently: article VI, § 25 (b)’s retirement mandate addresses a different constitutional matter than the ERA, and the two provisions are not antagonistic and may be harmonized. Therefore, we affirm the Appellate Division order affirming dismissal of the underlying petition. Matter of Miller v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03907, CtApp 6-18-26

, , ,

DEFENDANT HAD REQUESTED NEW COUNSEL AND ARGUED THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE PROPER INQUIRY BEFORE DENYING THE REQUEST; DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY REPRESENTED BY HIS ORIGINAL COUNSEL; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT RULED THE DEFENDANT “ABANDONED” HIS “INVOLUNTARY PLEA” ARGUMENT BY REMAINING REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA; THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED DEFENDANT NEVER ABANDONED THE “INVOLUNTARY PLEA” ARGUMENT AND THE LINE OF FOURTH DEPARTMENT DECISIONS TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and invalidating a line of Fourth Department decisions, determined the defendant did not waive the argument that his guilty plea was not voluntarily entered. Defendant had argued the trial judge did not make the required findings after defendant requested new counsel. The Fourth Department ruled that argument was abandoned because defendant pled guilty while represented by his original defense attorney. The Court of Appeals held the defendant had never waived the “involuntary plea” argument:

The Fourth Department’s holding, the most recent in a line of cases to the same effect, is wrong for several reasons. First, as the Appellate Division acknowledged, a claim challenging the voluntariness of a plea survives even a valid appeal waiver … . A challenge to voluntariness cannot be extinguished because the same counsel about whom a defendant has complained, unsuccessfully, continued to represent the defendant at plea and sentencing. Second, in any event, these circumstances do not constitute waiver of defendant’s voluntariness claim … . Waiver “occurs when a defendant intentionally and voluntarily relinquishes or abandons a known right that would otherwise survive a guilty plea” … . Here, the fact that defendant pleaded guilty while represented by the same attorneys does not evince an intentional choice to abandon review of the voluntariness of his plea. Defendant contends that his guilty plea was an effort to mitigate the harm resulting from the court’s denial of his request for new counsel, not an abandonment of his request. To the extent that the Appellate Division relied on the fact that, during the plea colloquy, defendant did not renew his complaints about counsel, his silence does not indicate waiver. Finally, the Fourth Department’s line of cases adopting this erroneous rule originates in People v Hobart (286 AD2d 916 [4th Dept 2001]), which cited no case law or authority for its rule, nor does it explain the rule’s origins. The other Departments have not adopted that rule. People v Kelley, 2026 NY Slip Op 03904, CtApp 6-18-26

Practice Point: Here defendant requested new counsel and the request was denied. Then defendant pled guilty while represented by his original counsel. Defendant did not waive his “involuntary plea” argument by pleading guilty with his original counsel. The line of Fourth Department decisions which held a guilty plea in this context abandons defendant’s “involuntary plea” argument is no longer valid. The abandonment or waiver of an “involuntary plea” argument must be explicit.

 

, , ,

PETTIONERS (LICENSED CANNABIS RETAILERS) DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE RESPONDENT AGENCY’S REGULATIONS CONCERNING INSPECTIONS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AT PETITIONERS’ PLACES OF BUSINESS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ALLEGATION THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INSPECTIONS ARE CONDUCTED VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION IS PREMATURE BECAUSE THE ALLEGATION HAS NOT YET BEEN SUBJECTED TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, I.E., THE “EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES” REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN MET (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Corcoran, determined the preliminary injunction prohibiting certain inspections of petitioners’ businesses, which are licensed for the retail sale of cannabis, should not have been granted. The respondent is an agency, the NYS Cannabis Control Board.

… [Re:] petitioners’ attempt to show the likelihood of a successful constitutional challenge, we find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction because petitioners failed to show that the statutory and regulatory scheme is invalid in all of its applications … . * * *  When viewed as a whole, we find that the statutory and regulatory framework provides “meaningful limitation[s]” on an inspector’s discretion and ensures that “the search is limited in scope to that necessary to meet the interest that legitimized the search in the first place” … . …

To the extent petitioners challenge the manner in which inspections were applied to their particular businesses, these “as-applied” claims are premature because they have not been subjected to administrative review. A facial challenge requires examination of the statute “on a cold page” and without reference to the particular conduct … , whereas an “as-applied” challenge “requires an analysis of the facts of a particular case” … . Matter of Super Smoke N Save LLC v New York State Cannabis Control Bd., 2026 NY Slip Op 03715, Third Dept 6-11-26

Practice Point: A court can review an agency’s regulations which are alleged to be unconstitutional “on a cold page,” but a court cannot review the manner in which the regulations are applied absent an agency determination (the “exhaustion of remedies” rule in administrative law).

 

, ,

HERE THE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TOXIC TORTS ACTIONS WAS PRE-EMPTED BY A FEDERAL “DISCOVERY RULE” WHICH ALLOWS A TOXIC-TORT ACTION TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE CAUSE OF AN INJURY, EVEN IF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE DISCOVERY OF THE INJURY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, determined the federal “discovery rule” for toxic tort actions pre-empts the state statute of limitations. The lawsuit alleged a town landfill near a school emitted toxic materials causing illness among the school’s staff and students:

42 USC § 9658 has been deemed a “discovery rule” … , and “does not purport to create an entirely new statute of limitations framework for state toxic tort actions” … . Instead, the statute provides “a limited ‘[e]xception to State statutes’ [that] applies only if the state statute ‘provides a commencement date which is earlier than the federally required commencement date'” … . Thus, in New York, where suit was not brought within three years of the discovery-of-injury date as provided by CPLR 214-c(2), the primary effect of 42 USC § 9658 is to allow a plaintiff to bring suit within one year after “the date the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known)” the cause of an injury, even if more than five years have elapsed since discovery of the injury … . * * *

… [W]ith respect to those plaintiffs in this action who did not bring suit within three years of the discovery of their alleged injuries (see CPLR 214-c[2]), 42 USC § 9658 applies to allow those plaintiffs to bring suit within one year after “the date the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known)” the cause of an injury, even if more than five years have elapsed since discovery of the injury … . Klaus v Town of Brookhaven, 2026 NY Slip Op 03669, Second Dept 6-10-26

Practice Point: Here the state statute of limitations for toxic tort cases was pre-empted by a federal “discovery rule” which allows suit within one year after “the date the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known)” the cause of an injury, even if more than five years have elapsed since discovery of the injury.

 

, , , , ,

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.

 

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