You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , ,

PETITIONER FAILED TO EXHAUST AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AFTER THE APPLICATION FOR A BUILIDING PERMIT WAS DENIED BY APPEALING TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS; THE FAILURE WAS NOT EXCUSED ON THE GROUND THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS AT STAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner did not exhaust the available administrative remedies before bringing an Article 78 proceeding. Petitioner’s application for a building permit, apparently for a gas station, was denied by the village building inspector. Supreme Court, pursuant to the Article 78, granted the petition. The Second Department held that petitioner’s failure to appeal the building inspector’s ruling to the zoning board of appeals rendered the petition abandoned. Petitioner’s argument that the failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be excused because a constitutional issue was at stake was rejected:

“The exhaustion rule … is not an inflexible one. It is subject to important qualifications. It need not be followed, for example, when an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power, or when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury” … . …

 “‘A constitutional claim that hinges upon factual issues reviewable at the administrative level must first be addressed to the agency so that a necessary factual record can be established'” … . “Further, the mere assertion that a constitutional right is involved will not excuse the failure to pursue established administrative remedies that can provide the required relief” … . Matter of 5055 N. Blvd., LLC v Incorporated Vil. of Old Brookville, 2022 NY Slip Op 00424, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, ,

WHEN SUBSTITUTING AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAVE BEGUN, THE JURY MUST BE INSTRUCTED TO START THE DELIBERATIONS OVER AND DISREGARD THE PRIOR DELIBERATIONS; THE OVER $14 MILLION PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the over $14 million judgment and ordering a new trial on damages, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Barros, determined defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this traffic accident case should have been granted. An alternate juror was substituted after deliberations began. The jury should have been instructed to begin deliberations anew:

… [W]e address whether the 2013 amendments to CPLR 4106, which changed the statute to allow trial courts to substitute a regular juror with an alternate juror even after deliberations have begun, may be reconciled with the constitutional right to a trial by a six-member jury wherein each juror deliberates on all issues (see NY Const, art I, § 2 … ). We hold that to reconcile CPLR 4106 with the constitutional and statutory requirements for a civil jury verdict, the trial court must, upon substituting an alternate juror in place of a regular juror after deliberations have begun, provide an instruction to the jury directing them, inter alia, to restart their deliberations from the beginning with the substituted juror and disregard and set aside all prior deliberations. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court’s failure to give that instruction resulted in an invalid verdict which, among other things, deprived the defendants of their request to poll each of the jurors whose votes were counted as part of the verdict … , and their right to “a process in which each juror deliberates on all issues and attempts to influence with his or her individual judgment and persuasion the reasoning of the other five” … . Caldwell v New York City Tr. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 07537, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

, , , ,

AN APPELLATE COURT HAS THE POWER TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE MOTION COURT; THE REGULATION MANDATING CERTAIN VACCINES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OR EXCEED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged, comprehensive opinion by justice NeMoyer which cannot be fairly summarized here, held the appellate court had the power to determine a request for a declaratory judgment which was not raised in the motion court, and the regulation mandating certain vaccines, 10 NYCRR 66-1.1(1) , does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or exceed the regulatory powers of the NYS Department of Health:

The legislature has determined that vaccines save lives. It has therefore established a mandatory “program of immunization . . . to raise to the highest reasonable level the immunity of the children of the state against communicable diseases” (Public Health Law § 613 [1] [a]). And by promulgating 10 NYCRR 66-1.1 (l), respondents-defendants-appellants (defendants) merely implemented the legislature’s policy in a manner entirely consistent with the legislative design. We therefore hold that 10 NYCRR 66-1.1 (l) is valid, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and does not exceed the authority of its promulgator. Matter of Kerri W.S. v Zucker, 2021 NY Slip Op 07349, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PLACES RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE SEX OFFENDERS CAN RESIDE AFTER RELEASE FROM PRISON, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and agreeing with the First and Second Departments, determined the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibits petitioner-sex-offender from residing within 1000 feet of school grounds, did not violate the Ex Post Facto clause of the US Constitution:

Because petitioner was unable to locate housing in New York City that fulfilled the residency requirements imposed by SARA, even with respondents’ assistance (see Correction Law § 201 [5]), he remained incarcerated. * * *

We are guided … by a recent case concerning individuals in a situation akin to petitioner’s, in which the Court of Appeals held that “the temporary confinement of sex offenders in correctional facilities, while on a waiting list for SARA-compliant [New York City Department of Homeless Services] housing, is rationally related to a conceivable, legitimate government purpose of keeping level three sex offenders more than 1,000 feet away from schools,” and “[t]he existence of less restrictive methods of monitoring [individuals in these circumstances] during this period does not invalidate the use of correctional facilities” … . …

… “[i]n assessing the constitutionality of a statute, this Court does not review the merits or wisdom of the Legislature’s decisions on matters of public policy, and the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. Although one can argue that such laws are too extreme or represent an over-reaction to the fear of sexual abuse of children, they do not violate the [E]x [P]ost [F]acto [C]lause” … . People ex rel. Rivera v Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 2021 NY Slip Op 07044, Third Dept 12-16-21

 

, , ,

THE RESPONDENT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WAS ENTITLED TO IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (CPL) 245.20 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the respondent-appellant in this juvenile delinquency proceeding was entitled to impeachment evidence concerning the arresting officers to the extent authorized by Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 245.20:

While not all provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law are applicable to proceedings under the Family Court Act (Family Ct Act § 303.1[1]) under the circumstances presented here, the denial of records available under CPL 245.10(1)(k)(iv), which broadly requires disclosure of all impeachment evidence deprived appellant of equal protection of the laws (US Const, 14th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 11 …).

A respondent in a juvenile delinquency proceeding has the same right to cross-examine witnesses as a criminal defendant … , and there is no reason to allow more limited access to impeachment materials in a juvenile suppression or fact-finding hearing than in a criminal suppression hearing or trial. The need for impeachment evidence is equally crucial in both delinquency and criminal proceedings. A similarly situated defendant in a criminal proceeding would be entitled to access to the impeachment materials requested by appellant. Matter of Jayson C., 2021 NY Slip Op 06794, First Dept 12-7-21

 

,

COMMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY A JUROR DURING DELIBERATIONS EXPRESSING ETHNIC BIAS REQUIRED A HEARING AND FINDINGS WHETHER DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE, WERE VIOLATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department remitted the matter for a hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, Defendant’s motion included an affidavit from the jury foreperson alleging a juror exhibited ethnic bias during deliberations:

The People consent to this matter being remanded for a hearing to determine whether ethnic bias tainted the jury’s deliberations as alleged by defendant (see PeÑa-Rodriguez v Colorado, – US -, 137 S Ct 855 [2017]; People v Leonti , 262 NY 256 [1933]). Defendant’s CPL 440 motion included an affidavit from the jury foreperson, in which he swore that, during deliberations, a juror made ethnic comments concerning defendant and the complainant exhibiting “overt [ethnic] bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict” (PeÑa-Rodriguez , – US -, 137 S Ct at 869).

At the hearing, the court should determine the veracity of these allegations. Should the court find these allegations to be true, it should determine, as a matter of federal law, whether defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to jury trial was denied because “[ethnic] animus was a significant motivating factor in the juror’s vote to convict” … . The court should also determine more broadly, as a matter of New York State law, whether the juror’s statements “created a substantial risk of prejudice to the rights of the defendant by coloring the views of the other jurors as well as her own” … . People v Chodakowski, 2021 NY Slip Op 06781, First Dept 12-2-21

 

, ,

THE AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD AND JUDICIARY LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PRECLUDED BY THE NOERR-PENNINGTON DOCTRINE; THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT ALLEGE RELIANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the aiding and abetting fraud and Judiciary Law 487 causes of action were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine (see Mine Workers v Pennington, 381 US 657; Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 US 127), and the complaint did not state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement:

“The Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to petition the government for governmental action, including through litigation and activity incidental to litigation” … . …

… Supreme Court properly concluded that the causes of action alleging that the defendants aided and abetted fraud and violated Judiciary Law § 487 were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine applied to these causes of action insofar as they were based upon litigation and activities that were incidental to litigation, and the pertinent allegations did not fit within either the “sham” or the “corruption” exceptions to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine … . …

Where a cause of action is based upon misrepresentation or fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (CPLR 3016[b]). Here, the allegations in the complaint failed to sufficiently allege justifiable reliance, and therefore failed to state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement … . Louie’s Seafood Rest., LLC v Brown, 2021 NY Slip Op 06167, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

RETRIAL VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY; DEFENDANT HAD MADE A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DID NOT CONSENT TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the retrial and dismissing the indictment, determined the trial court’s failure to procure defendant’s consent to discharge the jury after defendant’s motion for a mistrial with prejudice triggered the protection against double jeopardy:

Double jeopardy bars a retrial except as to a defendant who has requested or consented to the mistrial … . Here, the record does not show that either defendant consented to a mistrial without prejudice. Defendants initially made general motions for a mistrial, but on the next day they expressly limited their motions to requests for a mistrial with prejudice. Accordingly, when the court announced its ruling shortly afterwards, it should have obtained defendants’ unequivocal consent before discharging the first jury or else have continued the trial with the same jury … . The retrial thus violated the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy, and these prohibitions require reversal of defendants’ convictions and dismissal of the indictment … . Defendants’ double jeopardy claim does not require preservation, although it may be expressly waived … . However, there was no such waiver here. People v Lantigua, 2021 NY Slip Op 05671, First Dept 10-19-21

 

, , , ,

NYC’S RIGHT OF WAY LAW CRIMINALIZES ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE WHEN A VEHICLE STRIKES A PEDESTRIAN OR A BICYCLIST WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY; THE LAW IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS, PROPERLY IMPOSES ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE AS THE MENS REA, AND IS NOT PREEMPTED BY OTHER LAWS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a concurring opinion, determined New York City’s “Right of Way Law,” which criminalizes ordinary negligence when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian or bicyclist who has the right of way, is constitutional and is not preempted by other laws. Both defendants were convicted under the Right of Way Law (NYC Administrative Code 19-190), a misdemeanor. The defendants unsuccessfully argued (1) the law is void for vagueness; (2) ordinary negligence cannot constitute the mens rea for a criminal act; and (3) the law is preempted by the Penal Law and the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Article 15 of the Penal Law lists and defines four “culpable mental states”—”intentionally,” “knowingly,” “recklessly,” and “criminal negligence” … . However, strict liability is also contemplated by article 15: “[t]he minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which [such person] is physically capable of performing,” and, “[i]f such conduct is all that is required for commission of a particular offense, . . . such offense is one of ‘strict liability'” … . * * *

The provisions of the Penal Law “govern the construction of and punishment for any offense defined outside” of the Penal Law, “[u]nless otherwise expressly provided, or unless the context otherwise requires” (Penal Law § 5.05 [2]). The two key provisions at issue, Penal Law § 15.00 (Culpability; definitions of terms) and § 15.05 (Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states), expressly provide otherwise by making clear that they are “applicable to this chapter” only. Further contradicting defendants’ interpretation of article 15 is the legislature’s own use of an ordinary negligence mens rea for offenses defined outside the Penal Law. For example … Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 and Agriculture and Markets Law § 370—which were enacted after the relevant provisions in article 15 of the Penal Law—both employ an ordinary negligence standard for imposing criminal liability. People v Torres, 2021 NY Slip Op 05448, CtApp 10-12-21

 

,

BUFFALO MAYOR’S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE ELECTION-LAW DEADLINE FOR FILING AN INDEPENDENT NOMINATING PETITION, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY SUPREME COURT, REJECTED BY THE 4TH DEPARTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Election Law 6-158 (9) was not unconstitutional as applied to a Buffalo mayoral race. The petitioner, who had lost in a primary, attempted to file an independent nominating petition in August but the Election Law required filing in May:

The degree of scrutiny used to analyze the constitutionality of a state election regulation depends on the severity of the regulation’s burden on the constitutional rights of candidates and their supporters … . If that burden is severe, the law “must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance” … . A provision imposing “only reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions,” however, can be justified by a state’s “important regulatory interests” … and is subject to a review that is “quite deferential” and requires “no elaborate, empirical verification” … . The totality of a state’s overall plan of election regulation should be considered in determining the severity of the restrictions … . * * *

Because a “reasonably diligent candidate” could be expected to meet New York’s requirements for independent candidates and gain a place on the ballot … and because those requirements do not unfairly discriminate against independent candidates … , we conclude that Election Law § 6-158 (9) places only a minimal burden on the constitutional rights of those candidates and their voters. Matter of Brown v Erie County Bd. of Elections, 2021 NY Slip Op 05014, Fourth Dept 9-16-21

 

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