You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, GUILTY PLEA VACATED; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT DISCUSSED UNTIL AFTER THE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and finding the waiver of appeal invalid, held that the judge’s failure to inform defendant of the period of postrelease supervision rendered the guilty plea involuntary. In addition, the judge did not discuss the waiver of appeal until after the guilty plea:

… County Court did not specify the period of postrelease supervision to be imposed and did not explain that a term of postrelease supervision would be imposed even if the defendant successfully completed a substance abuse diversion program. … [T]he court’s failure to so advise the defendant prevented his plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . …

… County Court did not discuss the appeal waiver until after the defendant had already admitted his guilt … , and the court failed to ascertain whether the defendant “understood the nature of the appellate rights being waived” and the consequences of waiving those rights … . People v Reyes, 2024 NY Slip Op 02547, Second Dept  5-8-24

Practice Point: Failure to inform defendant of the period of postrelease supervision renders the guilty plea involuntary.

Practice Point: Failure to discuss the waiver of appeal until after the defendant pleads guilty renders the waiver invalid.

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT A FINE IS PART OF THE SENTENCE RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the failure to inform defendant that a fine was part of the sentence rendered the plea involuntary:

“[I]n order for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of that plea” … . “The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant’s sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine” … , and the failure to advise a defendant at the time of the guilty plea of a direct consequence of that plea “requires that [the] plea be vacated” … . Here, the court failed to advise defendant that the sentence imposed on a person convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree must include a fine in an amount between $500 and $5,000 (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b] [i]). People v Carmichael, 2024 NY Slip Op 02427, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: A judge’s failure to inform the defendant that a fine is part of the sentence renders the guilty plea involuntary.

 

, , , ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST STUDENTS OF COLOR AND SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging the New York City public school system discriminates against Black and Latinx students and seeking injunctive relief was justiciable and stated valid causes of action. Therefore the complaint, which had been dismissed, is now reinstated. The opinion is comprehensive and far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

Plaintiffs allege that State and City policies create a “racialized” admission pipeline. According to plaintiffs, the pipeline begins with a single standardized test for the City’s Gifted & Talented (G&T) programs taken by children as young as four-years-old. The G&T test, plaintiffs assert, disproportionately benefits “privileged” white students and their “in-the-know” parents, who have the “navigational capital” to understand the admissions process and the economic capital to pay for expensive test preparation. The G&T programs, plaintiffs allege, provide superior academic preparation, which allows primarily white and Asian students to continue through the pipeline to academically screened middle and high schools, relegating Black and Latinx students to unscreened schools, often in poorly maintained buildings with limited extracurricular programs. The end of the pipeline, or “zenith” as plaintiffs describe it, is admission to one of eight New York City specialized high schools based on the results of the Special High School Admissions Test (the SHSAT).* * *

The pipeline, plaintiffs claim, is designed to exclude Black and Latinx students from the City’s prime educational opportunities. According to plaintiffs, the State and the City “intentionally adopted” and “for decades have intentionally retained—with no pedagogical basis—testing-based sorting that they know excludes students of color from equal educational opportunities.” This knowledge was acquired, plaintiffs allege, “through decades of experience and reflected in [defendants] own admissions” including the knowledge of the public school system’s “racist character and outcomes.” Despite this knowledge, plaintiffs allege that the State and the City “intentionally refuse to dismantle . . . its racialized channeling system.” IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02369, First Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court’s conclusion that the suit seeking injunctive relief from discriminatory education policies and procedures in the New York City public school system was not “justiciable” was rejected.

 

, ,

HERE THE FACILITY REVIEW OFFICER VIEWED THE VIDEO EVIDENCE AND EXPRESSED THE CONCLUSION PETITIONER HAD VIOLATED PRISON RULES BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING; THAT SAME OFFICER DECIDED PETITIONER’S ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL; THAT SCENARIO VIOLATED DUE PROCESS; THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the determination petitioner had violated prison rules, determined the fact that the facility review officer reviewed petitioner’s misbehavior report and decided the administrative appeal violated due process:

Petitioner contends … he was denied due process because the facility review officer that reviewed his misbehavior report … also decided petitioner’s administrative appeal of the guilty determination as the facility superintendent’s designee … . … Generally, the facility review officer is charged with reviewing each misbehavior report issued and, considering the seriousness of the alleged violations in the report, determining the appropriate tier level classification … . Here, petitioner, both during the hearing and in his administrative appeal, challenged certain actions taken by the facility review officer concerning his review of the misbehavior report. … [I]n reviewing the misbehavior report, the facility review officer viewed the video that was to be presented as evidence of guilt at the hearing. Based upon his viewing of the video, the facility review officer informed petitioner in a memorandum prepared prior to the disciplinary hearing that the video shows “you and your visitor acting in an unacceptable manner in the visit room.” The review officer further states “that the video does not show your penis being exposed as stated in the [misbehavior] report that’s why I downgraded the tiering, . . . it does clearly show your visitor with her right hand between your legs in the groin area and her hand moving in a stroking motion.” In light of the fact that certain challenges to the review officer’s actions were raised by petitioner in his administrative appeal, as well as the facility review officer’s expressed predeterminations regarding petitioner’s guilt, we conclude that his serving as the superintendent’s designee to decide the appeal denied petitioner a fair and impartial administrative appeal. Matter of Williams v Panzarella, 2024 NY Slip Op 02118, Third Dept 4-18-24

Practice Point: In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, the prisoner’s right to due process of law is violated when the same officer who viewed the evidence and indicated the prisoner was guilty prior to the hearing also decided the prisoner’s administrative appeal.

 

, , ,

THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM’S DENIAL OF COURT EMPLOYEES’ APPLICATIONS FOR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE AFFIRMED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department affirmed the NYS Unified Court System’s (UCS’s) denial applications for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate. The issue was analyzed under both the US and NYS Constitutions. The USC held the petitioners (USC employees) failed to meet the qualifications for employment by not complying with the mandate. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here, but is well worth reading for the constitutional analyses:

Conducting the appropriate level of review, we find that the vaccine mandate was rationally related to the legitimate goals of slowing the spread of COVID-19 and fully reopening courts to “promote efficient access to justice” … . Indeed, “[w]hatever their merits or efficacy, it cannot be said that the State’s policies are an irrational means to achieve the legitimate goal of curbing the spread of COVID-19” … . Matter of Ferrelli v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02012, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: The NYS Unified Court System’s denial of employees’ applications for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate did not violate the US or NYS Constitutions.

 

,

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) VIOLATED THE LESS IS MORE ACT (LIMA) BY FAILING TO HOLD A RECOGNIZANCE HEARING WITHIN 24 HOURS, AND FAILING TO HOLD A PRELIMINARY HEARING WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE EXECUTION OF THE PAROLE-VIOLATION WARRANT; HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming the grant of the habeas corpus petition, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s (DOCCS’s) failure to hold a recognizance hearing on petitioner’s alleged violation of parole within 24 hours as required by the Less is More Act (LIMA) (Executive Law 259-i) violated due process:

LIMA’s plain language was abrogated when petitioner’s recognizance hearing was held five days after the execution of the warrant, instead of within the requisite 24 hours. This error was compounded when the preliminary hearing was held seven days after the execution of the warrant, instead of the requisite five days (Executive Law § 259-i[3][c][i][B]). The interpretation that DOCCS advances would bypass LIMA and effectively remove its statutory duty to ensure that recognizance hearings are timely held within 24 hours of the warrant execution … . Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v Annucci, 2024 NY Slip Op 01685, First Dept 3-26-24

Practice Point: The statutory requirement that a recognizance hearing must be held within 24 hours and a preliminary hearing must be held within five days of the execution of a parole-violation warrant is strictly enforced. Failure to comply with the statutory time-limits violates due process and warrant granting a habeas corpus petition.

 

,

CPLR ARTICLE 63-A IS CONSTITUTIONAL; THE STATUTE ALLOWS ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK ORDER PROHIBITING A RESPONDENT FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM BASED UPON EVIDENCE RESPONDENT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS HARM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Barros, determined the statute which allows the issuance of an extreme risk order prohibiting a person from possessing a firearm is constitutional. The statute is CPLR article 63-A:

CPLR 6342(1) provides, in pertinent part, that upon an application for an extreme risk protection order: “the court may issue a temporary extreme risk protection order, ex parte or otherwise, to prohibit the respondent from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun, upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe the respondent is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others, as defined in paragraph one or two of subdivision (a) of section 9.39 of the mental hygiene law. Such application for a temporary order shall be determined in writing on the same day the application is filed.”

In determining whether there are grounds for a temporary extreme risk protection order, the court “shall consider any relevant factors,” including a nonexhaustive list of conduct by the respondent: “(a) a threat or act of violence or use of physical force directed toward self, the petitioner, or another person; “(b) a violation or alleged violation of an order of protection; “(c) any pending charge or conviction for an offense involving the use of a weapon; “(d) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm, rifle or shotgun; “(e) any history of a violation of an extreme risk protection order; “(f) evidence of recent or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol; or “(g) evidence of recent acquisition of a firearm, rifle, shotgun or other deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or any ammunition therefor. Matter of R.M. v C.M., 2024 NY Slip Op 01545, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Overruling lower court precedent to the contrary, the Second Department held CPLR article 62-A, which allows issuance of an order prohibiting a respondent from possessing a firearm based upon an extreme risk of serious harm to the respondent or others is constitutional.

 

,

AFTER RESPONDENT-STUDENT THREATENED TO “SHOOT… UP THE SCHOOL,” PETITIONER-POLICE-DEPARTMENT FILED A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 63-A WHICH SUPREME COURT DENIED ON THE GROUND THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED FINDING THE STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-police-department’s petition for an extreme risk protection order re: a 16-year-old student who had threatened to “shoot up the school” should not have been dismissed on the ground that the controlling statute, CPLR article 63-A, is unconstitutional:

… [T]he respondent, born in 2009, told other students on his school bus that “they shouldn’t come to school tomorrow” after they criticized the cleanliness of his hands. After the words “gun” and “shooting up the school” were mentioned, the respondent said that he was joking, but later said that he “may be serious” in carrying out his threat. School officials reported previous incidents involving violence by the respondent against other students, suicidal ideation and behavior by the respondent, and evidence that the respondent may have a mental illness.

The petitioner [police department] filed a petition for an extreme risk protection order pursuant to CPLR article 63-A. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition [on the ground that] CPLR article 63-A is unconstitutional. …

The respondent is a minor less than 16 years old, who … is not allowed to possess guns …, … [T]he Supreme Court of the United States stated that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects “law-abiding, adult citizens.” The respondent in this case is not an adult and has no general right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, he lacks standing to challenge CPLR article 63-A as a violation of the Second Amendment … .

Further, … CPLR article 63-A is constitutional and does not deprive the respondent of due process of law. Accordingly, the petition should be determined on the merits. Matter of Gallagher Town of New Windsor Police Dept. v D.M., 2024 NY Slip Op 01539, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Here the police department sought an extreme risk protection order re: a 16-year-old student who threatened to shoot up the school  Supreme Court dismissed the petition for the extreme risk order, finding the controlling statute, CPLR article 63-A, unconstitutional. The First Department reversed noting its opinion dated March 20, 2024, Matter of R.M. v C.M., 2024 NY Slip Op 01545, finding the statute constitutional.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST NYC ALLEGING CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM AN UNEQUAL AND DISCRIMINATORY PROPERTY TAX SCHEME (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge partial dissent and a one-judge partial dissent, reversing (modifying) the appellate division, determined the complaint stated causes action for constitutional and statutory violations of the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) and the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) relating to an unequal property-tax scheme:

Plaintiff Tax Equity Now NY, LLC (TENNY) challenges New York City’s property-tax system, alleging that the system imposes substantially unequal tax bills on similarly-valued properties that bear little relationship to the properties’ fair market value. According to the complaint, the result is staggering inequities and a regressive tax system that hurts those who can least afford to pay heavy taxes. The complaint further alleges that multi-million-dollar properties are taxed at similar or lower rates than less valuable properties and that real property in majority-people-of-color districts are overassessed and subjected to higher taxes compared to properties in majority-white districts. TENNY seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against City and State defendants for alleged constitutional and statutory violations caused by the City’s tax scheme. Despite the comprehensive, detailed allegations and legal precedent supporting the causes of action, the Appellate Division dismissed the complaint in its entirety at the pleading stage for failure to state any claim. That was error. * * *

… [T]he complaint’s allegations, supported with independent studies and the City’s own data of widening disparities resulting from its annually-repeated assessment methodology to Class One and Two properties, sufficiently plead violations of RPTL 305 (2) against the City. * * *

The FHA’s legislative goals are twofold: elimination of discrimination in housing and the promotion of residential integration  * * *

… [U]nder our State’s liberal pleading standards, TENNY’s allegation that the City’s tax system perpetuates segregation suffices … . Tax Equity Now NY LLC v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01498, CtApp 3-19-24

Practice Point: Under New York’s liberal pleading standards, the complaint stated causes of action against NYC for violations of the Real Property Tax Law and the federal Fair Housing Act stemming from an unequal and discriminatory property tax scheme.

 

, , ,

THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MUST BE CONDUCTED 30 DAYS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENT, REGARDLESS WHETHER THE STATE IS CONSIDERING OR IS IN THE PROCESS OF INSTITUTING CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Curran, over a comprehensive two-judge dissenting opinion by Judge Wilson, determined that the sex offender risk-level assessment proceedings must be held 30 days prior to a defendant’s release from confinement, regardless whether the state is considering instituting, or already has instituted, proceedings to civilly commit the defendant pursuant to the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SORA):

The Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law § 168 et seq.) provides that a sex offender “shall” be classified into one of three risk level categories “[30] days prior to discharge, parole or release” (Correction Law § 168-n [2]). The central question presented by these appeals is whether, for purposes of SORA, this deadline is properly measured from the date an offender is released from confinement by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), despite pending or contemplated proceedings to civilly commit the offender under the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA) (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 et seq.). We hold that, under a plain reading of SORA, the 30-day deadline for conducting a risk level classification hearing must be measured from an offender’s release by DOCCS upon the completion of a prison sentence, irrespective of whether the state is considering instituting, or has already instituted, proceedings under SOMTA. We further hold that offenders are not denied due process by having a SORA hearing at a time when they may be civilly committed under SOMTA. People v Boone, 2024 NY Slip Op 00928, CtApp 2-22-24

Practice Point: SORA risk-level-assessment proceedings are to be held 30 days prior to defendant’s release from confinement and cannot be delayed because the state is considering or has instituted proceedings for civil commitment.

 

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