You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , ,

THE REVIVED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR LAWSUITS ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Bannister, determined the revived statute of limitations for law suits based upon sexual abuse under the Child Victims Act (CVA) did not violate due process:

… [I]t is well settled that “a claim-revival statute will satisfy the Due Process Clause of the [New York] State Constitution if it was enacted as a reasonable response in order to remedy an injustice” … . Addressing the second prong of that standard first—i.e., whether the statute “remed[ied] an injustice”—the Court of Appeals recognized that, “[i]n the context of a claim-revival statute, there is no principled way for a court to test whether a particular injustice is ‘serious’ or whether a particular class of plaintiffs is blameless; such moral determinations are left to the elected branches of government” … . Here, as evidenced by the legislative history of the CVA, the legislature considered the need for “justice for past and future survivors of child sexual abuse” and the need to “shift the significant and lasting costs of child sexual abuse to the responsible parties” … . Specifically, the legislative history noted the significant barriers those survivors faced in coming forward with their claims, including that child sexual abuse survivors may not be able to disclose their abuse until later in life after the relevant statute of limitations has run because of the mental, physical and emotional injuries sustained as a result of the abuse … . As explained in the Senate Introducer’s Memorandum in Support, “New York currently requires most survivors to file civil actions . . . against their abusers by the age of 23 at most, long before most survivors report or come to terms with their abuse, which has been estimated to be as high as 52 years old on average” … .. Because the statutes of limitat ions left “thousands of survivors” of child sexual abuse unable to sue their abusers, the legislature determined that there was an identifiable injustice that needed to be remedied … . PB-36 Doe v Niagara Falls City Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 00598, Fourth Dept 2-3-23

Practice Point: The revived statute of limitations in the Child Victims Act is constitutional.

 

, , ,

THE CORRECTION LAW REQUIRING A SEX OFFENDER TO VERIFY HIS OR HER ADDRESS EVERY NINETY DAYS IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS AS APPLIED TO HOMELESS SEX OFFENDERS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty pleas, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the Correction-Law requirement that a sex offender verify his or her address every 90 days is void for vagueness as applied to homeless sex offenders:

… [T]he question is whether the reporting requirements of Correction Law § 168-f(3) provided sufficient notice to defendant of what conduct was mandated by the statute when he left his previous residence address, a homeless shelter, but possessed no new permanent or temporary residence with an address. According to its plain language, Correction Law § 168-f(3) mandates that offenders register a change of residence by providing a specific new “address.” The statute, however, contains no objective standard or guidelines that would put homeless sex offenders without an address on notice of what conduct is required of them. Under these circumstances, such transient offenders can only guess at what is meant by the requirement that they register their new “address.” Similarly, the change of address reporting requirement fails to provide even minimal guidelines for the registering authorities in these regards, thus encouraging arbitrary enforcement. People v Allen, 2023 NY Slip Op 00496, First Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: The Correction Law requiring a sex offender to verify his or her address every ninety days is void for vagueness as applied to homeless sex offenders.

 

,

UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION AGAIN FOUND THE SEVEN-YEAR PREINDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, upon remittal from the Court of Appeals, determined defendant was not deprived of his right to due process by the seven-year preindictment delay. The Fourth Department had reached that same conclusion before the matter was heard by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals sent the matter back because it found the Fourth Department did not correctly analyze the case under the Taranovich (37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]) factors:

After review of defendant’s contention upon remittitur, we conclude that he was not deprived of due process of law by the preindictment delay. In determining whether defendant was deprived of due process, we must consider the factors set forth in Taranovich, which are: “(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” … . “[N]o one factor [is] dispositive of a violation, and [there are] no formalistic precepts by which a deprivation of the right can be assessed” … , but “it is well established that the extent of the delay, standing alone, is not sufficient to warrant a reversal” … . People v Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 07407, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: The seven-year preindictment delay, applying the Taranovich factors, did not deprive defendant of due process of law.

 

, , , ,

YESHIVA UNIVERSITY NO LONGER HAS THE REQUISITE CONNECTION TO RELIGION AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITIONS IN THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE PRIDE ALLIANCE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION AS AN OFFICIAL STUDENT ORGANIZATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined a student group (Pride Alliance) at Yeshiva University was entitled to summary judgment pursuant to the NYC Human Rights Law (City HRL)on its claims asserting gender, sexual orientation, and association discrimination. In addition Pride Alliance was entitled to a permanent injunction requiring Yeshiva to recognize the group as an official student organization. Essentially, Yeshiva argued the university was exempt from the requirements of the City HRL as a religious corporation or institution, but the university no longer had the requisite connection to religion: Yeshiva’s constitutional arguments (free exercise of religion, freedom of expression and association) were rejected:

Yeshiva was originally chartered in 1897 under the Membership Corporations Law as the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary Association (RIETS), with the stated purpose to “promote the study of Talmud” and prepare Orthodox Jewish rabbis for ministry. Over several decades, the charter was amended to allow numerous secular degrees to be awarded and to change the name of the institution, while RIETS remained part of Yeshiva. In 1967, Yeshiva amended its charter to become incorporated under the Education Law. Two years later it amended the charter to drop Hebrew Literature and Religious Education degrees, since RIETS was being spun off as its own corporation offering those degrees, and to “clarify the corporate status of the University as a non-denominational institution of higher learning.” While Yeshiva is now comprised of three undergraduate colleges and seven graduate schools, RIETS remains a separate corporate entity housed on one of Yeshiva’s campuses. YU Pride Alliance v Yeshiva Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 07175, First Dept 12-13-22

Practice Point: Yeshiva University was not entitled to exemption from the discrimination prohibitions in the NYC Human Rights Law because the university no longer has the requisite connection to religion. Therefore the “Pride Alliance” was entitled to recognition as an official student group.

 

, ,

WHEN A DEFENDANT MUST BE RELEASED BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS NOT CHARGED WITH A BAIL-ELIGIBLE OFFENSE, A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION MUST BE CONDUCTED AS AN OUT-PATIENT OR IN A HOSPITAL; THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE ORDERED TO JAIL PENDING THE EXAMINATION; THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined defendant, who was not charged with a bail-eligible offense, could not be ordered to jail for a competency examination. Defendant must either be examined as an out-patient, or, upon a recommendation of a medical official, in a hospital. The writ of habeas corpus was properly granted and the appeal was heard as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

… [W]e conclude that Wei Li [defendant] was not “in custody” during his arraignment … because he was not charged with a qualifying offense under the bail laws and the court was required to order his release at arraignment (see CPL 510.10 [3]; 530.20 [1] [a]). As its plain text makes clear, subdivision (3) mandates the location for the examination as either (1) the place where the defendant is in custody at the time the court orders the examination, or (2) at a hospital facility, as might be necessary for an effective examination. The statute’s use of the phrase “in custody,” like the phrase “hospital confinement,” refers, as a practical matter, to where a defendant may be properly examined by psychiatric personnel. Thus, “in custody,” as used in subdivision (3), does not broadly refer to custodial control over a defendant at a courthouse. …

A court issuing an order for a competency examination [pursuant to CPL 730.20] (1) may direct an examination on an outpatient basis or, (2) upon a medical recommendation of the director, the court may, but need not, order hospital confinement until completion of the examination. People v Warden, Rikers Is., 2022 NY Slip Op 07093, CtApp 12-15-22

Practice Point: A defendant who is not charged with a bail-eligible offense cannot be ordered to jail pending a competency examination. The defendant must be examined as an out-patient or, upon the recommendation of a medical official, in a hospital.

 

THE ENABLING ACT WHICH TASKED A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE WITH DECIDING WHETHER THE SALARIES OF LEGISLATORS AND STATE OFFICIALS SHOULD BE INCREASED IS CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive concurring opinion and a two-judge dissent, determined the enabling act which empowered a committee to decide whether to increase the salaries of legislators and state officials was constitutional. The opinions are far too comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of part HHH of chapter 59 of the Laws of 2018 (the enabling act), in which the Legislature tasked the Committee on Legislative and Executive Compensation with determining, after consideration of various factors, whether “the salary and allowances of the members of the [L]egislature” and certain other state officials “warrant an increase” … . The enabling act further provided that the Committee’s recommendation with respect to any salary changes would become effective unless modified or abrogated by statute. Inasmuch as defendants have failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality afforded to the enabling act as a duly enacted state statute … , we affirm. Delgado v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06538, CtApp 11-17-22

Practice Point: Here the enabling act which tasked a legislative committee with deciding whether the salaries of legislators and state officials should be increased was deemed constitutional.

 

,

THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAL HIS 2006 CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT FROM RAISING THAT ISSUE TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2006 CONVICTION IN THE CONTEXT OF A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a persistent violent felony offender, determined the fact that defendant didn’t appeal his 2006 conviction on the ground he was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision did not prevent him from raising that issue to challenge use of the 2006 conviction in a persistent-felony-offender proceeding:

Defendant … challenged the constitutionality of the 2006 conviction, alleging that he was not informed during the plea allocution that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision … . The record reflects that Supreme Court and the People were under the impression that, because defendant had not raised that objection at his 2006 sentencing and had never appealed the 2006 judgment of conviction, such conviction remained unchallenged as of the hearing date and that, as a consequence, defendant’s sole recourse was to bring a motion under CPL article 440 seeking to vacate that conviction. Defendant was advised that, if the CPL article 440 motion was successful, he could then petition Supreme Court regarding his status as a persistent violent felony offender. The court then adjudicated defendant a persistent violent felony offender.

Significantly, “[n]otwithstanding his failure to appeal from the [2006] conviction, defendant had an independent statutory right to challenge its use as a predicate conviction on the ground it was unconstitutionally obtained” … . Under these circumstances, defendant was not afforded a sufficient opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of his 2006 conviction at the hearing. Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for a proper persistent felony offender hearing under CPL 400.16 and resentencing. People v Hoyt, 2022 NY Slip Op 05894, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: The fact that defendant did not appeal his 2006 conviction on the ground he was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision did not prevent defendant from challenging the use of the 2006 conviction in a persistent violent felony offender proceeding on that same ground.

 

, , ,

​ AN AMENDED REGULATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF LIFE-INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CONSUMERS IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS AND WAS PROPERLY CRAFTED AND ISSUED BY THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the appellate division, determined an amended regulation designed to protect the interests of life-insurance and annuity consumers was not void for vagueness and was properly crafted and issued by the NYS Department of Financial Services (DFS):

The amendment addressed concerns that the purchase of annuities and life insurance had become increasingly complex with more products available to purchase. DFS reasoned that consumers, finding themselves more reliant on professional advice in order to understand the options available and to make purchasing decisions, had become more susceptible to producers and insurers recommending transactions that prioritized their own compensation over the consumer’s best interest … . The amendment … extended the scope of the regulation to cover both annuity and life insurance contracts, and created a new standard applicable when producers and insurers make “recommendations” to consumers. The amended regulation, which applies to both “sales transactions” and “in-force transactions” … , requires that producers, or insurers when no producer is involved, act in the “best interest of the consumer” when making a “recommendation” … .

The producer or insurer must, among other things: make “reasonable efforts” to obtain the consumer’s “suitability information”; base any recommendation “on an evaluation of the relevant suitability information” that “reflects the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use under the circumstances then prevailing”; “[o]nly [consider] the interests of the consumer . . . in making the recommendation” and not be influenced by compensation or other incentives; recommend only “suitable” transactions; and have a “reasonable basis” to believe that the consumer has been reasonably informed of the features of the policy, the potential consequences of the transactions, both favorable and unfavorable, and that the consumer would benefit from certain features of the policy and the particular policy as a whole … . Matter of Independent Ins. Agents & Brokers of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Fin. Servs., 2022 NY Slip Op 05917, CtApp 10-20-22

Practice Point: An amended regulation designed to protect the interests of life-insurance and annuity consumers is not void for vagueness and was properly created and issued by the NYS Department of Financial Services. The amendment seeks to ensure the advice given to consumers does not place the financial compensation of the insurer ahead of the best interests of the consumer.

 

,

DESPITE THE DRIVER’S FAILURE TO USE A TURN SIGNAL AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THE STOP WAS ACTUALLY BASED UPON RACIAL PROFILING; IN THE FIRST DEPARTMENT THE “TURN SIGNAL” GROUND FOR THE STOP WOULD BE ENOUGH, EVEN IF THE STOP WAS ACTUALLY MOTIVATED BY DISCRIMINATION; NOT SO IN THE THIRD DEPARTMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, disagreeing with the First Department, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction on the ground the traffic stop was motivated by racial profiling. The traffic stop was justified by the driver’s failure to use a turn signal. In the First Department, that is good enough, even if racial profiling was the real reason for the stop. Not so in the Third Department:

… [Defendant] asserted a violation of his constitutional rights … based on the allegedly discriminatory police stop. Defendant, who is black, supported this claim with sworn affidavits from himself and the vehicle’s driver. The driver — a white woman — averred in her affidavit that, during the police encounter, the investigator who initiated the stop chided her, saying “you stupid little white b****, you think this black guy cares about you, but he’s just using you to run drugs.” .* * *

… [W]e are mindful that both the majority and dissent in Robinson rejected as unworkable the “primary motivation” subjective test for a traffic stop (see People v Robinson, 97 NY2d at 353; id. at 371 …). We abide by that conclusion. Whether a traffic stop was premised on racial profiling must be assessed objectively with reference to the facts and circumstances of the encounter. Such considerations may include, for example, whether the arresting officers were involved in a plausible investigation prior to executing the vehicle stop. Also important — and certainly most relevant here — is consideration of the officers’ actions and comments during the encounter. …

Defendant [submitted] the sworn affidavit of the driver of the vehicle, who … recounted a highly concerning racist statement ostensibly made by the investigator conducting the stop. … [T]he People neither controverted the driver’s statement nor included an affidavit from the investigator doing so … . Having demonstrated his right to a hearing (see CPL 440.30 [5]), defendant bears the burden of proving his claims by a preponderance of the evidence … . In resolving the motion, the court should undertake an objective analysis of the facts and circumstances of the entire police encounter. People v Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 05892, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: In the Third Department, even if there exists a valid reason for a vehicle stop, here the failure to use a turn signal, the stop may still be deemed invalid if it was motivated by racial profiling. In the First Department, the turn-signal violation would be enough, even if the actual motivation was discriminatory.

 

, , , ,

A CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ORDERED PETITIONER-TENANT TO VACATE HER APARTMENT AFTER FINDING SOME WINDOWS DID NOT OPEN; PENDING THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE CITY AMENDED THE CODE TO ALLOW A HEARING IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE (RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER); THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WAS AN AGENT OF THE STATE AND PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND COUNSEL FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined petitioner-tenant was entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees in petitioner’s action against the city for ordering petitioner to vacate her apartment without first affording a hearing. The order to vacate was made after the code enforcement officer found windows in the apartment which could not be opened and an electrical problem. Before the appeal was heard, the city amended to code to provide an administrative hearing to those ordered to vacate their apartments. Petitioner was deemed to be a prevailing party and was therefore entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees:

Petitioner entered into a lease agreement for a second-floor apartment in the City of Schenectady … . … [P]etitioner contacted respondent City of Schenectady Code Enforcement Office and reported problems with the apartment including, among other things, that only three of the windows in the apartment could be opened. Following this complaint, the owner hired a repairperson to fix the windows … . … [A] code enforcement officer conducted an inspection of said premises. Upon finding that several of the second-floor windows still could not be opened and there was an electrical violation, the code enforcement officer issued an order to “immediately vacate” the second floor of the premises due to “sealed emergency rescue openings” and “unsafe conditions.” The order to vacate listed multiple violations of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State (19 NYCRR part 1226 [hereinafter PMCNYS]) and violations of the Code of the City of Schenectady. * * *

… [R]espondents argue that Supreme Court erred in awarding petitioner counsel fees because this matter is not a civil action against the state within the meaning of CPLR 8601 (a) and, nonetheless, respondents were substantially justified in their acts. We disagree. “CPLR 8601 (a) mandates an award of fees and other expenses to a prevailing party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the position of the state was determined to be substantially justified or that special circumstances render an award unjust” … .

… [G]iven [the] statutory and regulatory framework, we are satisfied that respondents’ code enforcement officer acted as a state agent in issuing the order in the course of his enforcement of the PMCNYS…. .

… [P]etitioners were expressly entitled to a post-deprivation administrative hearing pursuant to Property Maintenance Code of New York State § 103.2.1. That provision contemplates a prompt forum for a dispossessed occupant to address his or her concerns with the involved municipal officials. … [R]espondents’ disregard of petitioner’s repeated requests for such a hearing effectively deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Respondents’ failure to follow up on the code violations only compounded the problem. Matter of Brown v City of Schenectady, 2022 NY Slip Op 05245, Third Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: A tenant ordered to vacate an apartment by a code enforcement officer is entitled to a prompt hearing.

Practice Point: A municipal code enforcement officer is an agent of the state. Therefore, a suit against a municipal code enforcement officer is a suit against the state entitling the prevailing party to costs, disbursements and counsel fees.

 

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