Constitutional Law – Page 2 – New York Appellate Digest

Attorneys, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

DEFENDANT’S 30.30 (“SPEEDY TRIAL”) MOTION WAS MADE ON THE DAY TRIAL WAS TO BEGIN; THE ARGUMENT THAT THE MOTION WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WERE STATUTORILY ENTITLED TO “REASONABLE NOTICE” WAS REJECTED; THE TRIAL JUDGE IS FREE TO ADJOURN THE TRIAL, OR PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL AND HEAR THE SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SUBSEQUENTLY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s 30.30 (“speedy trial”) motion was timely made right before trial. The argument that bringing the motion right before trial violated the statutory provision that the motion be made upon “reasonable notice” to the People was rejected. Once the motion is made, the trial court can opt to proceed with the trial and determine the motion subsequently:

… [A] defendant seeking a dismissal based on a speedy trial violation may wish to accumulate as many chargeable days as possible. The facts here reinforce the wisdom of this approach. Defendant made his motion on the date trial was set to begin, eleven months after his arraignment, and alleged 326 days chargeable to the People. That motion contained 9 pages of detailed calculations of days and arguments about why each period should be charged to the People, including the days immediately leading up to the July 23 court date. The People for their part now claim that only 54 of those days were chargeable to them. In other words, every day counts—and many may be contested—in the speedy trial context, and the statute affords a defendant flexibility to decide when best in the time leading up to the start of trial to make a CPL 30.30 (1) (b) motion.

… [T]he People are entitled to a fair opportunity to prepare a response. * * * A court in receipt of such motion has discretion whether to proceed with trial and when to resolve the motion. While proceeding in this way may lead to inefficiencies … , such a result may in certain cases be necessary. The trial court is in the best position to determine when proceeding to trial is warranted to avoid inconvenience to witnesses and unnecessary delay. People v Roper, 2026 NY Slip Op 02365, CtApp 4-21-26

Practice Point: Here a 30.30 (speedy trial) motion was timely despite being made on the day of the trial. The argument that the motion was untimely because the “reasonable notice” provision in the statute was violated was rejected. The court can proceed with the trial and hear the motion later.

April 21, 2026

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

THE FOURTH TRIAL, AT WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND WEAPON POSSESSION, TOOK PLACE THREE YEARS AFTER THE LAST OF THREE MISTRIALS; DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; CHARGES DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, dismissing defendant’s murder and weapon possession charges, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over the three-judge dissent, determined that the three-year delay between the third mistrial and the fourth trial violated defendant’s right to a speedy trial:

… [W]e conclude that the three-year delay to retry defendant a fourth time was unjustified and violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. … “[W]hile the greater the delay, the more likely the harm to the defendant, there is no specific length of time that automatically results in a due process violation … . Here, the delay was lengthy—more than three years and one month between the third and fourth trials, and 36 months between the third trial and when the prosecution declared readiness for the fourth trial. … The delay is even more stark when compared to the dramatically shorter time between the prior trials: six months between the first and second trials and eleven months between the second and third trials.

The “reason for the delay” factor is critical. Thus, in cases involving post-indictment delays, the prosecution’s “good faith will not insulate their decision to delay trial from judicial review on constitutional speedy trial grounds” … . “[O]nce having instituted the prosecution . . ., [the prosecution has] the obligation of advancing it unless there is a reasonable ground for delay” … . By the time of the delay preceding the fourth trial, defendant had already been indicted and tried three times. That indictment remained pending throughout the three-year delay. Accordingly, the prosecution had the obligation of advancing its case in the absence of a reasonable justification … .

A lengthy delay “demands close scrutiny of the other factors, especially the question of why the delay occurred” … . Here, the prosecution’s justifications for the delay lack record support and in any case are not persuasive. The prosecution’s claim that the delay was attributable to its consideration of defense counsel’s request for dismissal after three mistrials cannot, without more, account for the three-year delay. The prosecution did not provide any particular reasons for why its deliberations of whether to retry defendant took so long given its failure to obtain a conviction three times in a row on the murder and weapon possession charges. Nor did the prosecution assert that an internal “changing of the guard” impacted its ability to render a decision on whether to retry the case. People v Woods, 2026 NY Slip Op 02364, CtApp 4-22-26

Practice Point: Here defendant was convicted of murder and weapon possession at his fourth trial, There was a three-year delay between the last mistrial and the fourth trial. The delay violated defendant’s speedy trial rights. The charges were dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

April 21, 2026

Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Real Property Law, Religion

PLAINTIFF SUED A CHURCH ALLEGING THE CHURCH HELD PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE CHURCH WRONGFULLY OUSTED PLAINTIFF FROM THE PROPERTY; RESOLUTION OF THE SUIT WOULD INVOLVE NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, NOT RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES; THEREFORE, THE LAWSUIT WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the lawsuit concerning ownership of church property was not precluded by the First Amendment because the suit could be decided by applying neutral principles of civil law, not religious principles:

The complaint alleged, among other things, that Synod held the church property in trust for the plaintiff, as the beneficial owner, and that Synod wrongfully ousted the plaintiff from the church property in March 2020 following a series of disputes between the plaintiff and Synod. Synod moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, arguing, inter alia, that resolution of the causes of action requires review of ecclesiastical matters over which the Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. …

“‘The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs'” … . “However, a court may resolve church property disputes ‘when the case can be decided solely upon the application of neutral principles of . . . law, without reference to any religious principle'” … . “‘The neutral principles of law approach requires courts to apply objective, well-established principles of secular law to the issues,’ and ‘[i]n doing so, courts may rely upon internal documents, such as a congregation’s bylaws, but only if those documents do not require interpretation of ecclesiastical doctrine'” … .

Here, contrary to Synod’s contention, it failed to demonstrate that the causes of action cannot be resolved solely upon the application of neutral principles of law, without reference to any religious principle … . Lutheran Church of the Risen Christ, Mo. Synod v Atlantic Dist. of the Lutheran Church Mo. Synod, 2026 NY Slip Op 02260, Second Dept 4-15-26

Practice Point: If a lawsuit against a church involves ownership of property and can be decided based on neutral principles of law (not religious principles) the suit is not precluded by the First Amendment and can be brought in state court.

April 15, 2026

Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Municipal Law, Negligence

THE COUNTY CHARTER, WHICH PURPORTED TO ELIMINATE THE CONSTRUCTIVE-NOTICE THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO A BICYCLIST BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN A COUNTY ROAD, DID NOT SUPERSEDE THE HIGHWAY LAW; TO STATE A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COUNTY MUST DEMONSTRATE BOTH A LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE AND A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Golia, determined the county charter, which allowed the county to “opt out” of the constructive-notice provisions in the Highway Law, did not supersede the Highway Law. Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was injured when his bicycle struck a pothole on a county road. Supreme Court denied the county’s summary judgment motion which argued the county charter eliminated the constructive-notice theory of liability. The Second Department affirmed the denial and further held that the county was required to show both a lack of written notice and a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition to warrant summary judgment:

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a bicycle accident, we are asked to determine whether the defendant, County of Suffolk, may enact legislation pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law that supersedes a New York State law. Specifically, the County contends that, through the enactment of Suffolk County Charter § C8-2(A)(2), it may supersede the provision of Highway Law § 139(2) that allows for an action to be maintained against a county, regardless of prior written notice, where the county had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition, pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(5). We hold that Suffolk County Charter § C8-2(A)(2)(iii) contradicts Highway Law § 139(2) and, thus, the County may not, as it contends, “exercise [its] right to opt out” of the requirements of said statute. The County also contends that, in effect, even if constructive notice could be a theory of recovery in the instant action, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing in the first instance that the County had constructive notice of the alleged defective condition. In other words, the County contends that its burden on this motion for summary judgment was only to show that it lacked prior written notice of the allegedly defective condition before the burden shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the County had constructive notice of the condition. We hold, consistent with our precedent, that, when moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in cases invoking Highway Law § 139(2), the County must establish, prima facie, that it lacked both prior written notice and constructive notice of the alleged defective condition before the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard or with regard to whether another exception applies. Romas v County of Suffolk, 2026 NY Slip Op 02142, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: A county charter provision which contradicts the New York State Highway Law does not supersede the provisions of the Highway Law.

April 8, 2026

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Evidence, Judges

A MORE PROBING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE MENTALLY DISABLED DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ALFORD PLEA, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by Alford plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined a more probing inquiry by the judge was required to determine whether the plea was knowing and intelligent. Defendant had been found incompetent to stand trial twice before being found mentally competent to stand trial:

While there is no mandatory catechism required of a pleading defendant, there must be an affirmative showing on the record that the defendant waived his or her constitutional rights” … . “People with intellectual disabilities possess diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. . . . These traits render people with intellectual disabilities uniquely vulnerable to injustice within criminal proceedings. . . . [Therefore], a court must account for [a defendant’s] diminished mental capacity in ensuring that any waiver of constitutional rights is knowing, intelligent and voluntary” … .

As defendant was twice determined to be incompetent to stand trial and had received four years of treatment before he was deemed competent to participate in his defense, County Court was aware of defendant’s intellectual disabilities. Notwithstanding the determination that defendant was competent to stand trial, the third psychiatric evaluation report cast serious doubts on defendant’s ability to enter a knowing and voluntary plea. The report indicates that on defendant’s most recent cognitive assessment he “achieved a [f]ull-[s]cale IQ of 59, indicative of abilities consistent with a [m]ild [i]ntellectual [d]isability.” Additionally, he “achieved an [a]daptive [b]ehavior [c]omposite of 68, consistent with [the] upper end of the ‘low’ range of daily living skills.” The psychologist further noted that defendant was “rather immature in his understanding of the severity of his charges and the chances that he could have significant consequences — such as jail time.” More importantly, during the evaluation, defendant repeatedly alleged that his counsel had reassured him that he will not be going to jail and, in fact, “express[ed] strongly held beliefs that he will not be sent to jail due to his personal circumstances of having a disability and being young when the offenses were allegedly committed. These beliefs are likely related to his relative youth and mental health difficulties, several of which make it difficult for [defendant] to relate to others successfully, accept social norms and expectations, or respect interpersonal boundaries. These beliefs are unlikely to change with additional education or training.”

Under these circumstances, “[a] more probing inquiry was warranted here to ensure that defendant understood the constitutional rights he was waiving, given his significant intellectual disability” … . As there is no affirmative showing on the record that defendant understood and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights when he entered his guilty plea, the judgment of County Court convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing defendant thereon should be reversed, the plea vacated and the matter remitted for further proceedings … . People v Oldorff, 2026 NY Slip Op 02004, Third Dept 4-2-26

Practice Point: Where the defendant is mentally disabled and has previously been found incompetent to stand trial, before accepting a guilty plea, a probing inquiry by the judge is required to ensure the defendant understands the consequences.

April 2, 2026

Attorneys, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Judges

DEFENDANT, BY FIRING HIS ATTORNEY AND REFUSING TO BE PRESENT AT TRIAL, WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT HIS TRIAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a concurrence and an extensive dissent, determined defendant, by firing his attorney and refusing to be present during the trial, waived his right to effective assistance of counsel and his right to be present at his trial. The court further determined that the consecutive sentences for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon were improper because both offenses arose from the same act of possession:

“Waiver is a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary relinquishment of a known right” … . Like other fundamental rights, a defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel may be waived … . We have explained that “[a]n accused awaiting trial . . . has only two choices regarding legal representation—proceed with counsel or waive the protection of the Sixth Amendment and proceed pro se” … . Accordingly, when a defendant “refuse[s] self-representation and restrict[s] the participation of counsel . . . [they] hav[e] voluntarily waived the right to the effective assistance of counsel” … .

Whether the waiver of a fundamental right is valid “depend[s], in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused” … . “In many instances, the requisite affirmative showing that . . . [a] right[ ] ha[s] been knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived will include a direct colloquy between the court and the defendant” … . We have also long held that a defendant may waive certain fundamental rights by their conduct, most notably in the context of the right to be present … . In determining whether such a waiver occurred, relevant circumstances include the warnings provided by the trial court, the defendant’s actions in response, and whether, in light of the defendant’s conduct, the trial court could practicably have administered additional warnings or attempted to secure an oral waiver. * * *

In light of the trial court’s many warnings to defendant and defendant’s obstructive behavior in response, there is record support for the conclusion that, by his conduct, defendant waived the right to effective assistance of counsel. A trial court must be cautious not to conflate waiver of the right to be present at trial with waiver of the right to effective assistance of counsel. These rights are separate, and a trial court has distinct duties to ensure the validity of a defendant’s waiver of each. However, in certain circumstances, as in this case, the same conduct may amount to a waiver of both rights. People v Lewis, 2026 NY Slip Op 01588, CtApp 3-19-26

Practice Point: A defendant by his behavior (here firing his attorney and walking out of the trial), in the face of sufficient warnings by the judge, may waive both the right to effective assistance of counsel and the right to be present at the trial.

March 19, 2026

Constitutional Law

NEW YORK’S MARIHUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT (CSA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined New York’s Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) which allows the sale and use of marihuana, is not preempted by the federal Controlled Substance Act, which does not allow the sale and use of marihuana:

… [W]e turn to petitioners’ contention that the challenged regulations promulgated under MRTA — which authorizes the sale, use and distribution of marihuana — create a positive conflict with the CSA prohibiting these exact actions. We find that no such conflict exists. Consistent with the main objectives of the CSA, the legislative intent behind MRTA was to, among other things, “regulate, control, . . . reduce the illegal drug market and reduce violent crime, reduce participation of otherwise law-abiding citizens in the illicit market . . . [and] protect the public health, safety and welfare of the people of the state” … . In doing so, the Legislature specifically provided that nothing in MRTA was “to require any individual to engage in any conduct that violates federal law or to exempt anyone from any requirement of federal law or pose any obstacle to the federal enforcement of federal law” … . Each of the challenged parts 113, 128 and 129 within title 9 of the NYCRR further these principles by regulating the legitimate and illegitimate handling of marihuana by setting specific restrictions on prescribers, manufacturers and retailers — including, as specifically challenged by petitioners, how medical and adult-use marihuana could be labeled, advertised and marketed … . When considered through the lens of a conflict preemption analysis, although petitioners present several instances where they claim there is an impossibility between federal and state law, these are merely hypothetical or potential conflicts, as neither MRTA nor the challenged regulations pose any requirements on an individual or entity to manufacture, distribute or possess marihuana … . Matter of Cannabis Impact Prevention Coalition, LLC v Hochul, 2026 NY Slip Op 01573, Third Dept 3-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a cogent summary of the criteria for federal preemption of a state law.

March 19, 2026

Constitutional Law, Labor Law-Construction Law, Negligence

PLAINTIFF WAS A CO-PILOT OF A HELICOPTER USED TO PROVIDE AN AERIAL PLATFORM FOR WORK ON POWER LINES; THE HELICOPTER STRUCK A POWER LINE AND PLAINTIFF JUMPED FROM THE HELICOPTER FROM A HEIGHT OF 75 FEET; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) STRICT LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT (FAA); THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER THE FEDERAL STANDARD OF CARE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, determined the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) six causes of action were preempted by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) but the negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed because the federal standard of care can be applied to them. Plaintiff was the co-pilot of a helicopter which was being used to provide an aerial platform for work on power lines. The helicopter struck a power line and plaintiff jumped out of the helicopter from a height of 75 feet:

Under the federal rules, “[t]he pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft” (14 CFR 91.3[a] …). Various federal courts have held that the pilot thereby has the “sole responsibility to determine whether it is safe or unsafe to undertake the proposed flight” … . * * *

Additionally, under the federal rules, “[n]o person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another” (14 CFR 91.13[a]). This rule is “[c]entral” to the FAA’s overarching standard of care …. Common-law negligence cases require a more stringent standard of care, “that of a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances” … . Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law negligence standard … , while Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) “subject contractors and owners to absolute strict liability” … . The standards of care underlying the four sources of liability alleged by the plaintiff—i.e., liability for common-law negligence and under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6)—thereby conflict with, and are preempted by, the federal recklessness standard. …

Where applicable, the effect of preemption of a state standard of care is not to preclude recovery or “to deprive Plaintiffs of their state remedies, but rather, to substitute a federal standard of care for New York’s reasonably-prudent-person standard” … . Fabia v Power Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2026 NY Slip Op 01489, Second Dept 3-18-26

Practice Point: Here, although the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) preempted the strict liability Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action in this helicopter-accident case, the negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed because the federal standard of care can be applied to them.

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of the issues raised by preemption of state Labor Law and negligence claims stemming from a helicopter accident by the Federal Aviation Act (FAA).

March 18, 2026

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

THE FOURTEEN-MONTH PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the 14-month pre-indictment delay did not deprive defendant of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Defendant was incarcerated when he threw urine on a corrections officer. The court analyzed the facts under the “Taranovich” criteria (37 NY2d 442):

This Court analyzes due process claims predicated on a pre-indictment delay by weighing the five factors set forth in People v Taranovich: “(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay” … . “The Taranovich framework is a holistic one—that is, ‘no one factor or combination of the factors . . . is necessarily decisive or determinative of the speedy trial claim'” … . People v Tyson, 2026 NY Slip Op 01446, CtApp 3-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how the Taranovich factors are applied to determine whether a pre-indictment delay violates the constitutional right to a s speedy trial.

March 17, 2026

Administrative Law, Animal Law, Constitutional Law, Municipal Law

A NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITS THE SALE OF FOIE GRAS, A “FATTY LIVER” CREATED BY FORCE FEEDING GEESE AND DUCKS, IS NOT PRE-EMPTED BY THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined the NYC Local Law which prohibited the sale of foe gras was not pre-empted by the Agriculture and Markets Law. Foie gras (fatty liver) is produced by force feeding geese or ducks several times a day:

Foie gras, which translates to English as “fatty liver,” is a food product obtained through such forced feeding of a goose or duck, by which the animal is made to consume large quantities of grain and fat using a pipe that is inserted down the esophagus. This process, which is repeated several times per day, seeks to produce a significantly enlarged liver when compared to that of a non-force-fed bird. * * *

… Agriculture and Markets Law § 305-a provides that “[l]ocal governments, when exercising]their powers to enact and administer comprehensive plans and local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, shall exercise these powers in such manner as may realize the policy and goals set forth in this article, and shall not unreasonably restrict or regulate farm operations within agricultural districts in contravention of the purposes of this article unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened” … . * * *

… Agriculture and Markets Law article 25-AA was expressly enacted to protect agricultural lands from “nonagricultural development extend[ing] into farm areas,” as well as “[o]rdinances inhibiting farming,” which “often lead[ ] to the idling or conversion of potentially productive agricultural land” … . The Legislature thus clearly expressed its intent that Agriculture and Markets Law § 305-a preempt those local laws that result in direct and unreasonable restrictions or regulations upon farming operations and the associated use of land — not the sale of products produced as a result of those operations in retail food and food service establishments, which may be subject to other statutory and regulatory limitations. Matter of City of New York v Ball, 2026 NY Slip Op 01426, Third Dept 3-12-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the Home Rule and pre-emption issues raised by a claim that a NYC Local Law, which prohibits the sale of animal products produced by force-feeding, is pre-empted by the Agriculture and Markets Law which seeks to limit infringement on farming operations. The pre-emption argument was rejected.

March 12, 2026