Constitutional Law – Page 28 – New York Appellate Digest

Attorneys, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE HOME AND THEREFORE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ARREST WARRANT, THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION BECAUSE THE POLICE ENTERED THE HOME WITH CONSENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL ARGUED THE POLICE DID NOT GET A WARRANT TO DELAY THE ATTACHMENT OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND PROCURE STATEMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers raising a question of first impression, determined the police did not violate the New York Constitution when they entered the home looking for defendant and made a warrantless arrest. The police had probable cause when they went to the home and defense counsel argued they did not get a warrant in order to delay the attachment of the right to counsel and obtain statements. The Second Department determined there was no Payton violation because the motion court credited the police testimony claiming they entered the home with the consent of the person who answered the door:

… [T]he defendant’s appellate counsel specifically contends that where the police, armed with probable cause and ample time to obtain an arrest warrant, nevertheless choose to make a warrantless arrest in the absence of exigent circumstances, their conduct must be deemed to violate the defendant’s indelible right to counsel under the New York State Constitution (see People v Harris, 77 NY2d at 440).

While this issue presents what appears to be an important constitutional question of first impression, we see no viable path to resolving this question in the defendant’s favor within the current framework of New York law. Although the hearing evidence fully supports the defendant’s view that the police went to the subject residence with the intent of making a warrantless arrest—indeed, the People did not present any evidence to suggest any alternative motive for the early morning visit—New York law does not presently recognize a “new category of Payton violations based on subjective police intent” (… People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434). Therefore, we decline to find that the police conduct in this case amounted to a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights under Payton and/or Harris.

Moreover, since the hearing court’s supportable finding of voluntary consent negates the defendant’s Payton claim, we need not consider the defendant’s further contention regarding the causal link between the warrantless arrest and his subsequent statements to the police. People v Cuencas, 2020 NY Slip Op 08118, Second Dept 12-30-20

December 30, 2020

Administrative Law, Appeals, Constitutional Law, Municipal Law

THE NYC BOARD OF HEALTH’S RESOLUTION MANDATING VACCINATION AGAINST MEASLES IS VALID AND LAWFUL; THE OBJECTIONS RAISED ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS WERE REJECTED BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION DID NOT SINGLE OUT, TARGET OR EVEN MENTION RELIGION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged, comprehensive opinion by Justice Scheinkman, determined the resolution by the NYC Board of Health mandating vaccination against measles was lawful and valid and did not violate petitioners’ freedom of religion. As a threshold matter the court considered the matter as an exception to the mootness doctrine, because measles outbreaks are likely to occur in the future:

On April 17, 2019, the Board of Health of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene of the City of New York adopted a resolution stating that, due to the active outbreak of measles among people residing within certain areas of Brooklyn, any person over the age of six months who was living, working, or attending school or child care in the affected areas had to be immunized against measles, absent a medical exemption. Failure to comply was made punishable by fines authorized by law, rule, or regulation, for each day of noncompliance. The plaintiffs/petitioners (hereinafter the petitioners), residents of areas covered by the resolution, challenge its validity. We hold that the resolution was lawful and enforceable, reserving, however, whether any fine imposed upon violation is excessive. The resolution was within the authority of the Board of Health of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to make and the resolution itself did not violate any right of the petitioners, including their freedom of religion. * * *

The petitioners profess to hold religious beliefs that hold that a healthy body should not assimilate foreign objects, including vaccine ingredients … . * * *

The Board’s resolution does not target religion or single out religion; it does not even mention religion. There is absolutely no indication that the resolution was adopted for the purpose of infringing the petitioners’ religious practices or suppressing their religious views … . The resolution treats all persons equally, whether religious or not … . The resolution does not create any favored classes at all, much less ones that are secular rather than religious. As the resolution is religiously neutral and generally applicable, it is not subject to strict scrutiny. C.F. v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2020 NY Slip Op 07867, Second Dept 12-23-20

December 23, 2020

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

PETITIONERS, INMATES AT A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RAISED ALLEGATIONS COGNIZABLE IN HABEAS CORPUS REGARDING THE FACILITY’S RESPONSE TO COVID-19; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITIONERS SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioners, inmates at Otis Correctional Facility, had made allegations with respect to the facility’s response to COVID-19 which were cognizable in habeas corpus. Therefore Supreme Court should not have refused to issue an order to show cause why the inmates should not be released:

… [T]he petition alleged that the inmates were being unlawfully imprisoned in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution because, in light of certain physical conditions and attributes specific to them as well as unalterable conditions of incarceration at Otisville, there were no measures that could be taken to protect them from the grave risk of death or serious illness posed by the COVID-19 virus while they were incarcerated in that facility. Thus, the petitioner alleged, the only remedy to cure the illegality of the inmates’ detention would be their immediate release. Contrary to the respondents’ contention and the conclusion of the Supreme Court, these allegations are properly cognizable in habeas corpus … . Accordingly, the court should not have refused to issue an order to show cause why the inmates should not be released (see CPLR 7003[a]). People ex rel. Tse v Barometre, 2020 NY Slip Op 06280, Second Dept 11-4-20

November 4, 2020

Constitutional Law, Family Law

ORDER PROHIBITING DEFENDANT HUSBAND FROM DISPARAGING PLAINTIFF WIFE TO THIRD PARTIES WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT OF SPEECH; ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PROHIBIT DISPARAGING PLAINTIFF TO PLAINTIFF’S PATIENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the order issued in this divorce proceeding prohibiting defendant husband from discussing, demeaning or disparaging plaintiff wife to third parties was an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. Plaintiff, a psychologist, wanted to prohibit defendant from talking to her patients. The Second Department held the order should be modified to limit the prohibition disparaging plaintiff to plaintiff’s patients:

The defendant correctly contends that the portion of the order granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an order directing the defendant not to discuss, demean, or disparage the plaintiff to any third parties, including but not limited to the plaintiff’s patients, was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. A prior restraint on speech is a law, regulation or judicial order that suppresses speech on the basis of the speech’s content and in advance of its actual expression … . Any imposition of prior restraint, whatever the form, bears a “heavy presumption against its constitutional validity, and a party seeking to obtain such a restraint bears a correspondingly heavy burden of demonstrating justification for its imposition” … . An injunctive order issued in the area of First Amendment rights must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order … . The order must be tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of the case … . Here, the Supreme Court’s prior restraint on speech was overbroad, and not tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of this case. The plaintiff, a psychologist, was concerned about damage to her professional reputation due to the defendant’s allegedly demeaning statements to her patients. The court’s objective can be achieved by modifying the order to provide only that the defendant shall not discuss, demean, or disparage the plaintiff to her patients … . Karantinidis v Karantinidis, 2020 NY Slip Op 05039, Second Dept 9-23-20

September 23, 2020

Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Municipal Law

MOTION TO DISMISS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE TREATED AS A MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; TWO CAUSES OF ACTION NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action should have been treated as a motion for a declaration in the defendant’s favor. The action concerned fines imposed on plaintiff home-owner by NYC for the alleged failure to have the in-home elevator inspected once a year. Plaintiff alleged the relevant regulations were unconstitutional. Plaintiff also included causes of action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The contract and estoppel causes of action were dismissed because they were not included in plaintiff’s notice of claim. The regulations were deemed constitutional. With regard to the declaratory judgment cause of action and the notice of claim, the court wrote:

“‘A motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration'” … . “[W]here a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court’s power to ‘render a declaratory judgment . . . as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy’ (CPLR 3001; see CPLR 3017[b]), a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied” … . However, upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, a court may reach the merits of a properly pleaded cause of action for a declaratory judgment where “‘no questions of fact are presented [by the controversy]'” … . Under such circumstances, the motion to dismiss the cause of action for failure to state a cause of action “should be treated as one seeking a declaration in [the] defendant’s favor and treated accordingly” … . * * *

A timely notice of claim is a condition precedent to maintaining an action against the City of New York (see Administrative Code § 7-201 … ). Here, the notice of claim attached to the complaint fails to include any allegations relating to the plaintiff’s causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and promissory estoppel … . Neuman v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 05052, Second Dept 9-23-30

September 23, 2020

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELEASE FROM RIKERS ISLAND BASED UPON THE RISK OF CONTRACTING COVID-19 PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the petitions for writs of habeas corpus brought by inmates at Rikers Island, arguing the risk of contracting COVID-19 at the jail required release, were properly denied. State and Federal constitutional arguments were raised. The analysis, which is too complex to fairly summarize here, came down to weighing the danger to the inmates against the danger to the public entailed by release:

Far from acting recklessly, respondents [city and state] have demonstrated great care to ensure the safety of everyone who enters the facility. By any objective measure, they have been anything but indifferent to the risk that COVID-19 poses to the jail population.

Even petitioners admit that respondents have taken substantial measures to reduce the spread of the virus on Rikers Island, and have had success in doing so. Moreover, petitioners have not cited to any controlling authority to establish that anything short of release constitutes deliberate indifference. …

That the State has agreed to release a significant number of detainees to help control the spread of the virus actually demonstrates that it has given a great deal of consideration to who should and should not be released, and its decision not to release petitioners based on their criminal history backgrounds is thus persuasive. Coupled with what the State and City have done to protect detainees, discussed above, we conclude that the weighing of interests falls in respondents’ favor. Matter of People ex rel. Stoughton v Brann, 2020 NY Slip Op 04236, First Dept 7-23-20

July 23, 2020

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Municipal Law

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether forfeiture of defendant’s vehicle would impose an excessive hardship and would constitute an constitutionally impermissible excessive fine. Defendant pled guilty to possession of a weapon which was found in his vehicle:

Plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant, the registered and titled owner of the vehicle, who pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm, used the vehicle as a means of committing the crime of criminal possession of a firearm … .

In opposition, defendant, acting pro se, submitted an affidavit and supporting evidence in support of his argument that forfeiture of the vehicle, which he needed for getting to work with his tools and picking up his children from school, would impose an excessive and tremendous hardship on him and his family, particularly given that this is his sole criminal offense, and in light of other mitigating facts. This evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether, under all the factual circumstances, civil forfeiture of the vehicle would be grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore a constitutionally impermissible excessive fine … . Property Clerk, N.Y. City Police Dept. v Nurse, 2020 NY Slip Op 03866, First Dept 7-9-20

July 9, 2020

Administrative Law, Appeals, Constitutional Law, Municipal Law

THE COURT WAS TROUBLED BY NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIAL AND HEARINGS’ (OATH’S) REQUIREMENT THAT PETITIONER PAY THE ORDERED RESTITUTION OF OVER $234,000 BEFORE PETITIONER COULD APPEAL THE DETERMINATION; THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE DECIDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted it was troubled by the New York City Office of Administrative Trial and Hearings’ (OATH’S) requirement that petitioner pay the ordered restitution as a prerequisite to appealing the determination. The issue was not raised by the parties so the First Department could not decide it:

Although neither specifically preserved nor raised on appeal, we are troubled by the constitutional ramifications of an administrative tribunal insulating its decision by making judicial review contingent on satisfaction of its order, including, as here, the payment of money … . It seems patently unfair to force a litigant to pay restitution as a condition for filing an appeal where the litigant has received a waiver of prior payment of his fine due to financial hardship … . Petitioner here is excused from paying a $5,000 fine as a condition to filing an appeal based on financial hardship, but, notwithstanding its financial hardship, it is forced to pay almost a quarter of a million dollars ($234,152.57) before it can file an appeal. Under this system, if you do not have the financial means to pay, you cannot come into court and seek review regardless of the merits of the challenged administrative determination … . Nonetheless, because this constitutional issue was not fully briefed before us, we do not decide it. Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings, 2020 NY Slip Op 03715, First Dept 7-2-20

July 2, 2020

Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Insurance Law, Religion

THE REGULATION REQUIRING NEW YORK HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVER MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTION SERVICES, WHICH INCLUDES AN EXEMPTION FOR ‘RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS,’ IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Colangelo, affirming Supreme Court, determined the regulation requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services, which includes an exemption for “religious employers,” was properly promulgated and was constitutional. The Court of Appeals decision upholding a similar regulation for prescription contraceptives, Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v Serio (7 NY3d 510 [2006] …), was deemed the controlling precedent:

At issue in Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany was the validity of a provision of the Women’s Health and Wellness Act (…[hereinafter WHWA]) that requires health insurance policies that provide coverage for prescription drugs to include coverage for prescription contraceptives … . The WHWA also provided an exemption from coverage for “religious employers” (Insurance Law § 3221 [l] [16] [E]), which exemption contains the identical criteria as the exemption applicable here … . … As the constitutional arguments raised by plaintiffs here are the same as those raised and rejected in Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany, Supreme Court properly concluded that they must meet the same fate by operation of the doctrine of stare decisis. “Stare decisis is the doctrine which holds that common-law decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future and that a rule of law once decided by a court will generally be followed in subsequent cases presenting the same legal problem” … .

We agree with Supreme Court that an analysis of the Boreali factors [Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1] weighs in favor of rejecting plaintiffs’ challenge that the Superintendent exceeded regulatory authority in promulgating the regulation at issue here. Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo, 2020 NY Slip Op 03707, Third Dept 7-2-20

July 2, 2020

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

THE SENTENCE FOR KIDNAPPING MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE FOR FELONY MURDER; MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY BROUGHT PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.20 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the judge should have analyzed the motion to vacate the conviction under Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.20, as well as 440.10; (2) the sentence for kidnapping should be concurrent with the sentence for felony murder; and (3) the judge failed to address whether the running of the kidnapping sentence consecutively to the other murder convictions violated defendant’s rights to equal protection. Matter remitted for consideration of the equal-protection argument:

The Supreme Court erred in construing the defendant’s motion as one solely pursuant to CPL 440.10. Rather, the motion also sought resentencing on the basis that the kidnapping sentence “was unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law” (CPL 440.20[1]) because it should have been made to run concurrently with the felony murder conviction under count three of the indictment, and it should have been made to run concurrently with all of the murder convictions based on his rights to equal protection. That branch of the motion was properly made pursuant to CPL 440.20 (see CPL 440.20[4]). …

… [T]he imposition of consecutive sentences for the kidnapping conviction under count four of the indictment and the felony murder conviction under count three of the indictment was unlawful, since the kidnapping … , of which the defendant was convicted under count four of the indictment, also constituted the underlying felony in his murder conviction under count three of the indictment, thereby constituting a “material element” of that crime (Penal Law § 70.25[2] …). …

The Supreme Court failed to address the only remaining issue raised by the defendant on this appeal—that the running of the sentence on the kidnapping conviction consecutively to the sentences on the other murder convictions violated his rights to equal protection. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination of that issue. People v Khan, 2020 NY Slip Op 03537, Second Dept 6-24-20

June 24, 2020

THE NYC BOARD OF HEALTH’S RESOLUTION MANDATING VACCINATION AGAINST MEASLES IS VALID AND LAWFUL; THE OBJECTIONS RAISED ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS WERE REJECTED BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION DID NOT SINGLE OUT, TARGET OR EVEN MENTION RELIGION (SECOND DEPT).

PETITIONERS, INMATES AT A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RAISED ALLEGATIONS COGNIZABLE IN HABEAS CORPUS REGARDING THE FACILITY’S RESPONSE TO COVID-19; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITIONERS SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED (SECOND DEPT).

ORDER PROHIBITING DEFENDANT HUSBAND FROM DISPARAGING PLAINTIFF WIFE TO THIRD PARTIES WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT OF SPEECH; ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PROHIBIT DISPARAGING PLAINTIFF TO PLAINTIFF’S PATIENTS (SECOND DEPT).

MOTION TO DISMISS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE TREATED AS A MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; TWO CAUSES OF ACTION NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELEASE FROM RIKERS ISLAND BASED UPON THE RISK OF CONTRACTING COVID-19 PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).

THE REGULATION REQUIRING NEW YORK HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVER MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTION SERVICES, WHICH INCLUDES AN EXEMPTION FOR ‘RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS,’ IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (THIRD DEPT).

THE SENTENCE FOR KIDNAPPING MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCE FOR FELONY MURDER; MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY BROUGHT PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.20 (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.