Constitutional Law – Page 21 – New York Appellate Digest

RETROACTIVE IMPOSTION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SEX OFFENDER VICTIM FEE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Christopher, determined the retroactive imposition of the supplemental sex offender victim fee did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the US Constitution. The fee was deemed to have a revenue-generating purpose, not a punitive purpose, and was not so punitive in effect as to negate the revenue-generating purpose. The court noted two two decisions (People v Bradshaw, 76 AD3d 566, People v Diggs, 73 AD3d 1210).should no longer be followed:

… [A] review of the legislative history of the 2004 amendment pursuant to which the supplemental sex offender victim fee was added to Penal Law § 60.35, reveals that it was part of an act entitled “Appropriations-Budgets,” that enacted “into law major components of legislation which are necessary to implement the state fiscal plan for the 2004-2005 state fiscal year” … . …

Next, we proceed to the second step of the inquiry, and consider whether the statute is punitive in effect … . In so doing, we consider the following factors articulated in Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez (372 US 144): “[1] whether the sanction involved an affirmative disability or restraint, [2] whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment, [3] whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, [4] whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence, [5] whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, [6] whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and [7] whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned” … . People v Bradshaw, 2022 NY Slip Op 05216, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: Retroactive imposition of the supplemental sex offender victim fee does not violate the Ex Post Facto clause. The purpose of the fee is to generate revenue, not to punish. The fee is not so punitive in nature as to negate its revenue-generating purpose.

September 21, 2022

PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” STANDARD IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE PURSUANT THE US SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN “NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN V BRUEN” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the recent US Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US _, 142 S Ct 2111 [2022] required that petitioner’s application for a pistol permit be granted. New York’s “proper cause” standard is no longer applicable:

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination by the New York City Police Department denying an application to renew a business carry handgun license. Supreme Court denied and dismissed the petition on the ground that the Police Department had a rational basis to deny the renewal of a business carry license where petitioner’s application did not establish “proper cause” within the meaning of Penal Law § 400.00 (see 38 RCNY 5-03). Supreme Court also found petitioner’s constitutional rights were not violated.

We are constrained by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US _, 142 S Ct 2111 [2022]) which mandates the grant of this CPLR article 78 petition. Specifically, in Bruen , the United States Supreme Court held that denial of a license applications for failing to satisfy New York’s “proper cause” standard, under which the applicants had to demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community, was unconstitutional as violative of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects an individual’s fundamental right to keep a firearm, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which makes this right equally applicable throughout the states. Matter of Callahan v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05057, First Dept 8-30-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US _, 142 S Ct 2111 [2022] the “proper cause” standard for issuing a pistol permit no longer applies. Petitioner’s application should have been granted.

August 30, 2022

Constitutional Law, Consumer Law

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PETITION ALLEGING RESPONDENT DISINFECTANT-DISTRIBUTOR ENGAGED IN PRICE GOUGING AT THE OUTSET OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE CONTROLLING STATUTE, GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 396-R, IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, reversing Supreme Court, determined the attorney general’s (AG’s) petition alleging that the respondent distributor (Quality King Distributors, Inc) engaged in price gouging should not have been dismissed. The petition alleged Quality King raised the price of Lysol, a disinfectant, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in violation of General Business Law 396-r. The First Department rejected the argument the relevant statutory provisions were void for vagueness:

In the special proceeding underlying this appeal, petitioner Attorney General of the State of New York accused respondent Quality King Distributors, Inc. of engaging in price gouging in contravention of General Business Law § 396-r based on its sale of certain Lysol products in the first four months of 2020. … [W]e reverse Supreme Court’s order denying the AG’s petition and, in effect, dismissing the proceeding, and remand the matter for further proceedings. * * *

Employing the February 26, 2020 onset date, our review of the purchase and sale data discloses several instances in which the amount charged to a particular customer in a particular transaction represents, prima facie, a gross disparity between the price of the Lysol product and the price at which it was sold by Quality King in the usual course of business immediately prior to the onset of the abnormal disruption of the market. …

Thus, the AG’s evidence demonstrated, prima facie, that Quality King sold the Lysol product at unconscionably excessive prices on at least several occasions. Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v Quality King Distribs., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05010, First Dept 8-23-22

Practice Point: The petition sufficiently alleged the distributor of Lysol, a disinfectant, engaged in price-gouging in violation of General Business Law 396-r at the outset of the COVD-19 pandemic.

August 23, 2022

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Evidence

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED, ONCE THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH REVEALED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON THE POLICE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING THE (STOLEN) WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET AND SEARCHING IT; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS UNDER THE STANDARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the wallet seized in the search of his person should have been granted. The related robbery convictions were reversed and a new trial on those counts was ordered. Defendant fled from the scene of the mugging and was properly detained by the police. However, once the pat-down search revealed defendant did not have a weapon, the police should not have seized the (stolen) wallet from defendant’s pocket and searched it. The “constitutional” error was not harmless because, under the facts, the error could have influenced the factfinder:

… [E]ven assuming that the officers were justified in performing a protective frisk … , there was no justification for searching the defendant’s pants pocket, reaching into it, and removing the wallet. In the course of conducting a protective pat-down based upon reasonable suspicion, “[o]nce an officer has concluded that no weapon is present, the search is over and there is no authority for further intrusion” … . There was no evidence presented at the suppression hearing that, during his frisk of the defendant, Nelson felt anything in the defendant’s pocket that seemed to be a weapon or that could have posed a danger to the officers at the scene. Indeed, Nelson did not testify at the hearing. Accordingly, there was no lawful basis for removing the wallet from the defendant’s pocket … , and that act violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures … . The officers committed an additional constitutional violation when, after retrieving the wallet from the defendant’s pocket, they opened it and conducted a warrantless search of its contents … . * * *

… [U]nder the constitutional standard, an error cannot be harmless if there is a reasonable possibility that it may have been a contributing factor that influenced the factfinder’s determination … . People v Lewis, 2022 NY Slip Op 04920, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Although defendant was properly detained in a street stop, once the pat-down search revealed defendant did not have a weapon the police were not justified in seizing the stolen wallet from defendant’s pocket and then searching it.

Practice Point: There are two sets of harmless-error criteria, one for nonconstitutional error and one for constitutional error. Under the constitutional-error criteria, the error in this case was not harmless and a new trial was ordered.

August 10, 2022

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)

WHERE DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS INNOCENCE AT TRIAL, HAS A PENDING APPEAL AND ASSERTS HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE SORA PROCEEDING, THE SORA COURT SHOULD NOT ASSESS POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 12 FOR FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt, reversing the SORA court, in a matter of first impression, determined that where defendant asserted his innocence at trial, has a pending appeal, and has asserted his right to avoid self-incrimination, he should not be assessed points under risk factor 12 for failing to take responsibility for the relevant offense:

… [W]e conclude that a defendant who has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and has a direct appeal pending should not be assessed points under risk factor 12. Considering this conclusion, and in view of defendant’s consistent refusal to incriminate himself and the pending status of his direct appeal, the assessment of 10 points under this factor amounts to a violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. * * *

… [D]efendant was forced to choose between, on the one hand, exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and being assessed points under risk factor 12, and, on the other, admitting responsibility for the acts that led to his conviction after so far maintaining his innocence and risking that those admissions would be used against him in a potential retrial or form the basis of a perjury charge. Ultimately, the penalty imposed on defendant when presented with this choice is that he was assessed 10 points under risk factor 12 and adjudicated a risk level two sex offender.

The difference between a level one and level two sex offender adjudication is substantial and illustrative of why the penalty is so great as to compel self-incrimination. If defendant were classified as a level one sex offender, he would be required to register annually for a period of 20 years from the date of initial registration (see Correction Law § 168-h), but his personal information would not be listed in a publicly available database. However, as a level two sex offender, defendant would be required to register annually for life (see Correction Law § 168-h), and his photograph, address, place of employment, physical description, age, and distinctive markings would be included in a public database (see Correction Law § 168-q). People v Krull. 2022 NY Slip Op 04783, First Dept 8-2-22

Practice Point: Here defendant asserted his innocence at trial, had a pending appeal and asserted his right against self-incrimination in the SORA proceedings. The SORA court should not have assessed points under risk factor 12 for failure to take responsibility for the offense.

August 2, 2022

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

THE PEOPLE WERE CHARGED WITH THE DELAY IN RESPONDING TO DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS MOTION ENTITLING DEFENDANT TO RELEASE ON BAIL PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s habeas corpus petition seeking release on bail based upon the speedy-trial statute should have been sustained:

When making a motion pursuant to CPL 30.30(2)(a) to be released on bail or his or her own recognizance, a defendant who has been committed to the custody of the sheriff has the initial burden of demonstrating, by sworn allegations of fact, that there has been an inexcusable delay beyond the time set forth in the statute … . Once a defendant has alleged that more than the statutorily prescribed time has elapsed without a declaration of readiness by the People, the People bear the burden of establishing sufficient excludable delay … . The burden is on the People “to ensure, in the first instance, that the record of the proceedings . . . is sufficiently clear to enable the court considering the . . . CPL 30.30 motion to make an informed decision as to whether the People should be charged” with any delay … .

… [T]he petitioner adequately raised before the Supreme Court the issue of whether the People should be charged with their delay in responding to the defendant’s omnibus motion. … [B]ecause the People did not seek and receive an extension of time to respond to the omnibus motion, or provide any explanation for the delayed response, they are “chargeable with the time between the court-imposed deadline to respond to the omnibus motion and the date on which the People actually filed a response” … . Here, the 13 days chargeable to the People due to their unexplained delay in responding to the omnibus motion, when coupled with the 86 days between the date of arraignment and the date upon which the People filed their certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL 245.50, totals more than 90 days … . People v Molina, 2022 NY Slip Op 04778, Second Dept 7-29-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff had been incarcerated for more than the 90 days allowed by CPL 30.30 and the 13-day delay occasioned by the People’s failure to timely respond to defendant’s omnibus motion was not adequately explained. Therefore defendant’s habeas corpus petition was sustained and he was entitled to release on bail which he is capable of meeting or on his own recognizance.

July 29, 2022

Appeals, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Evidence

ON REMAND FROM THE US SUPREME COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS HARMLESS ERROR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, on remand from the US Supreme Court, determined the evidentiary error was harmless and affirmed defendant’s conviction. The defendant was convicted of murder. The plea allocution of Morris, who was initially prosecuted for the same murder (but exonerated by DNA evidence). was allowed in evidence in defendant’s trial, a violation of defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. The Court of Appeals held the evidence against defendant was overwhelming rendering the violation of defendant’s right of confrontation harmless:

… “[T]here is no reasonable possibility” that the erroneously admitted plea allocution “might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” (People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). The plea allocution neither exculpated Morris nor inculpated defendant as the shooter, thus allowing defendant to argue to the jury that Morris was the perpetrator. Indeed, it merely supported a conclusion that Morris possessed a .357 magnum revolver on the day in question, and [a witness] had already testified to that alleged fact. … [T]he prosecutor’s reliance on the plea was exceedingly minimal. Under these circumstances and in light of the other, overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, the error below was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” (id. at 237, citing Chapman v California , 386 US 18 [1967]). People v Hemphill, 2022 NY Slip Op 04663, CtApp 7-21-22

Practice Point: It is worth remembering that even a constitutional error, here the violation of defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him, is subject to a harmless-error analysis.

July 21, 2022

Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Family Law

THE THREE-DAY FACT-FINDING HEARING RELATED TO THE NEGLECT PETITION RE: SERENA, NOT THE NEWLY-FILED DERIVATIVE NEGLECT PETITION RE: VINCENT; FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY CONSOLIDATED THE TWO PETITIONS FOR THE DISPOSITIONAL HEARING DEPRIVING MOTHER OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court never held a hearing on the newly filed derivative neglect petition (re: Vincent). The three-day fact-finding hearing related only to the neglect petition (re: Serena). At the subsequent dispositional hearing, the court improperly consolidated the two petitions:

The right to due process encompasses a “meaningful opportunity to be heard” at a fact-finding hearing on a neglect petition … , and to “present evidence relevant to the proceedings” … . Accordingly, the proceeding with respect to Vincent must be remitted to the Family Court … for a fact-finding hearing, in order to afford the parties an opportunity to introduce evidence relevant to the petition to adjudicate Vincent a derivatively neglected child, including, among other things, whether at the time the neglect petition was filed with respect to Vincent the mother had resolved the issues that were the basis of the finding of neglect as to Serena … . Matter of Serena G. (Monica M.), 2022 NY Slip Op 04547, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Here the court held a hearing which was confined to the neglect petition re: Serena and did not address the newly-filed derivative neglect petition re: Vincent. By combining the two petitions for the dispositional hearing mother was deprived of an opportunity to be heard (due process) on the derivative neglect petition.

July 13, 2022

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Evidence

THE CJA FORM WAS PUT IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED, WHICH WAS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGE; BUT THE CJA EMPLOYEE WHO TESTIFIED WAS NOT THE EMPLOYEE WHO CREATED THE DOCUMENT; BECAUSE THE CJA EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE DOCUMENT, ITS ADMISSION VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) form which indicated defendant lived where the weapon (the subject of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge) was found constituted testimonial evidence which violated the Confrontation Clause. The witness through whom the form was admitted in evidence did not create the form and, therefore, could not be cross-examined about its contents:

… [T]he testimony of the CJA employee and the CJA form were admitted in order to establish an essential element of the charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation … . The defendant was never given the opportunity to cross-examine the CJA employee who prepared the CJA form, and, in admitting the CJA form through an employee who did not prepare the form, the Supreme Court failed to ensure that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was protected … . People v Franklin, 2022 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here a document was admitted into evidence to prove where defendant lived, which was an element of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge. Because the person who created the document did not testify and therefore could not be cross-examined about its contents, defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated. New trial ordered.

July 6, 2022

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE SIX-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN WHEN THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE DNA EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT TO THE RAPE AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to reversal of the rape conviction based on the six-year preindictment delay. The dissenter would have reversed, finding the delay deprived defendant of due process:

In determining whether defendant was deprived of due process, we must consider the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442 [1975]), 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” … . * * *

There is no indication that the “delay was caused by any bad faith on the part of the People” … . Instead, the delay was largely caused by the efforts of the People and law enforcement “to acquire substantial corroborating evidence in order to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” … . Nevertheless, it is true, as defendant points out, that extensive periods of delay may fairly be attributed to neglect by the People and law enforcement in the investigation. But even assuming, arguendo, that [this] factor weighs in defendant’s favor, three of the five factors favor the People, and we thus conclude that the court did not err in denying that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to dismiss the indictment on due process grounds.

From the dissent:

The People … failed to present a valid reason for the delay … . As of September 2006, when the prosecution was made aware of DNA evidence linking defendant to the crime, the prosecutor possessed all information necessary to charge defendant, and the record reveals no reason, plan, or deliberate decision to delay defendant’s arrest until it was eventually made in January 2013. Instead, the record reflects that the explanation for the over six-year delay was simply inadvertence, which is an insufficient reason as a matter of law … . People v Stefanovich, 2022 NY Slip Op 04241, Fourth Dept 7-1-22

Practice Point: There was a six-year delay between when the People became aware of DNA evidence linking defendant to the crime and defendant’s arrest. The majority held the delay did not deny defendant of due process. The dissenter argued the People demonstrated only that the delay was the result of “inadvertence,” which is an insufficient reason.

July 1, 2022