You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , ,

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.

 

, , ,

EVEN WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE DEFENDANT LACKS THE CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDINGS, THE RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE WITHOUT AN INDEPENDANT ASSESSMENT OF DEFENDANT’S MENTAL CAPACITY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannaturo, over a two-judge dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, and a dissent by Judge Halligan, determined the SORA risk-level proceedings can proceed without an assessment of the defendant’s mental health, even where, as here, there is a possibility defendant make lack the capacity to fully comprehend the risk-level proceedings:

The Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) requires that every person convicted of a sex offense be given a risk-level classification corresponding to their assessed likelihood of recidivism and potential danger to the community. This risk level, in turn, determines the scope of information available to the public concerning the offender. To protect against erroneous classification, judicial determination of an offender’s risk level can occur only after the offender has been provided notice, counsel, disclosure of relevant information, and an opportunity to object and present evidence at a hearing, at which the People must prove the appropriateness of the classification by clear and convincing evidence. An offender’s risk level is also subject to re-evaluation on an annual basis.

The primary question on this appeal is whether due process precludes a court from determining a sex offender’s risk level when there is a possibility that the offender—although represented by counsel and provided the other protections listed above—may lack capacity to fully comprehend risk-level assessment proceedings. We hold that the many safeguards already provided under SORA minimize the risk of inaccurate risk-level classification and adequately balance the competing private and State interests in these civil proceedings. People v Watts, 2024 NY Slip Op 00926, CtApp 2-22-24

Practice Point: The safeguards in place for SORA-risk-level-assessment proceedings are sufficient to protect the rights of a defendant who may lack the capacity to comprehend the proceedings. There is no need for an independent assessment of defendant’s mental capacity before making the risk-level assessment.

 

, ,

PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE RELATING TO HIS MURDER CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH PETITIONER’S HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL COURT; THE FEDERAL COURT HAD ISSUED A STAY-IN-ABEYANCE ORDER TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO EXHAUST HIS STATE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, addressing a matter of first impression, determined petitioner’s FOIL request for documents and evidence related to his murder prosecution should not have been denied on the ground that granting the request would interfere with petitioner’s pending habeas corpus proceedings in federal court. The federal court issued a stay-and-abeyance order in the habeas corpus action to allow petitioner to exhaust his state remedies. Because the stay-and-abeyance order is in effect, the Second Department held that responding to the FOIL request would not interfere with the habeas corpus proceedings and the petition to compel production of the requested records should have been granted:

On July 12, 2020, the petitioner made a request to the Kings County District Attorney (hereinafter the District Attorney), pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law …, for “any and all material” related to the matter of People v Sarkodie, Indictment No. 2544/13, “including, but not limited to, any and all recordings, whether video or audio, DD-5’s, medical reports, witness statements, police memo books, crime scene investigative reports, evidence vouchers, and ballistics reports.” … On December 13, 2020, the petitioner’s counsel filed a second habeas corpus petition in the EDNY, which was consolidated with the petitioner’s pro se habeas petition In the federal habeas proceeding, the petitioner alleged both exhausted and unexhausted state law claims.

By order dated December 23, 2020 (hereinafter the stay-and-abeyance order), the EDNY acknowledged that the federal habeas proceeding “contains unexhausted claims that are not plainly meritless.” Accordingly, the EDNY “f[ound] a stay to be appropriate and h[eld] the Petition [*2]in abeyance” to allow the petitioner to “exhaust his unexhausted claims and perfect the petition … .  * * *

… [T]he District Attorney failed to establish that the records sought were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(i), since the District Attorney failed to establish that disclosure would interfere with the pending federal habeas proceeding … . Matter of Sarkodie v Kings County Dist. Attorney, 2024 NY Slip Op 00908, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: A FOIL request for documents and evidence related to defendant’s murder conviction should not have been denied on the ground that responding to the request would interfere with petitioner’s habeas corpus proceedings in federal court  The federal court had issued a stay-and-abeyance order to allow petitioner to exhaust his state remedies. Therefore, the petition to compel production of the sought documents and evidence should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE NYC LOCAL LAW ALLOWING NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Wooten, over a comprehensive partial concurrence and partial dissent, determined that a NYC Local Law which allowed non-citizens to vote in NYC municipal elections is invalid. The opinion addressed in detail the standing of the different categories of plaintiffs and the validity of the Local Law under the NYS Constitution, the Election Law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law:

This case concerns the validity of Local Law No. 11 (2022) of City of New York, which created a new class of voters eligible to vote in municipal elections consisting of individuals who are not United States citizens and who meet certain enumerated criteria. We determine that this local law was enacted in violation of the New York State Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law, and thus, must be declared null and void. …

The local law created a new class of voters called “municipal voters” who would be entitled to vote in municipal elections for the offices of mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and council member. The law defines a “municipal voter” as “a person who is not a United States citizen on the date of the election on which he or she is voting,” and who meets the following criteria: (1) “is either a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States”; (2) “is a resident of New York [C]ity and will have been such a resident for 30 consecutive days or longer by the date of such election”; and (3) “meets all qualifications for registering or pre-registering to vote under the election law, except for possessing United States citizenship, and who has registered or pre-registered to vote with the board of elections in the city of New York under this chapter.” Fossella v Adams, 2024 NY Slip Op 00891, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: A NYC Local Law allowing non-US citizens to vote in NYC municipal elections is null and void.

 

,

WHERE MODIFICATION OF A SECURING ORDER (RELEASE ON BAIL) IS NOT BASED UPON RISK OF FLIGHT, BUT RATHER IS BASED UPON THE COMMISSION OF FELONIES WHILE RELEASED ON BAIL, A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING MUST BE HELD, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE PEOPLE CAN SUBMIT TRANSCRIPTS OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, clarified the appropriate procedures for modifying a securing order when a defendant who has been released on bail is alleged to have committed other crimes:

While out on bail after his arrest for a felony, defendant was arrested three times for additional violent felonies. The court modified his securing order by remanding defendant. This appeal concerns the overlap between statutory provisions governing modifications to securing orders under these circumstances. We now hold that, where otherwise applicable, courts may modify a securing order when a defendant is charged with additional class A or violent felonies pursuant to either CPL 530.60 (1) or 530.60 (2) (a), but that, where the Court proceeds under CPL 530.60 (1), the record must reflect that the decision was based on the risk of flight factors and criteria in CPL 510.30. Where, as here, the record does not demonstrate that the court’s decision was based on defendant’s increased risk of flight, it will be assumed that the court proceeded pursuant to CPL 530.60 (2) (a) and a failure to follow the procedural requirements of CPL 530.60 (2) (c) will be considered error. * * *

Where a court modifies a securing order on [a]reasonable cause finding, and so determines that a defendant poses a danger to the community, the court must ensure that the procedural requirements of subdivision (2) (c) are followed (see e.g. People ex rel. Ryan v Warden, 113 AD2d 116, 117 [1st Dept 1985] [subdivision (2) (c) hearing required where “(p)etitioner’s remand without bail was, concededly, based solely upon his arrest for a new charge as provided for in CPL 530.60 (2) (a) and not on any finding that there was a likelihood he might not return to court (under) CPL 530.60 (1)”]). These prerequisites—a hearing with relevant, admissible evidence and the cross-examination of witnesses, or the submission of grand jury testimony transcripts—are designed to provide the court with a basis for a reasonable cause determination and to ensure that a defendant receives due process. While the procedural prerequisites provide for a more formal hearing with witness testimony, they also provide the People with the option, as they did upon remittal here, to submit transcripts of grand jury testimony—a streamlined approach that may provide the support needed for a reasonable cause finding. People ex rel. Rankin v Brann, 2024 NY Slip Op 00850, CtApp 2-20-24

Practice Point: Before bail is revoked because the defendant is alleged to have committed felonies while released on bail, a full evidentiary hearing must be held to flesh out the alleged crimes, or the People may submit transcripts of grand jury testimony. The mere allegation that defendant committed additional crimes while on bail is not enough.

 

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