You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , , ,

THE JUDGE’S ASSESSING SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; DETERMINATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the SORA risk level determination, held that the judge violated defendant’s right to due process of law by assessing points that were not requested by the People, and violated the Correction Law requirements for imposing an upward departure:

Although defendant failed to object to the assessment of points … when the court rendered its oral decision, we “review defendant’s contention in the interest of justice in light of the substantial infringement upon [her] due process and statutory rights” … .

… [T]he court failed to comply with the requirement of Correction Law § 168-n (3) that it set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which it based its decision to grant the People’s request for an upward departure … . In its decision, the court merely concluded, under the first part of the relevant three-part analysis, that the People had identified “aggravating . . . circumstances . . . of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . At no time in its decision did the court render a determination on the other two parts of the relevant analysis. Rather, after identifying the aggravating circumstances, the court conclusorily granted the People’s application for an upward departure, without ever “weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an over- or under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . People v Ridley, 2025 NY Slip Op 05599, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: If a judge assesses SORA risk-level points not requested by the People, the defendant’s due process rights are violated.

Practice Point: In granting an upward departure in a SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding, the judge must make the findings required by the Correction Law.

 

, ,

THE PROVISION OF THE CORRECTION LAW WHICH REQUIRES AN OUT-OF-STATE SEX OFFENDER TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER” UPON RESIDING IN NEW YORK, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE OUT-OF-STATE OFFENSE WAS VIOLENT, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THIS DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Taylor, determined the Correction Law provision requiring that an out-of-state sex-offender be automatically classified as a “sexually violent offender” upon residing in New York was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant:

Pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a(3)(b), the People … provided notice of their intent to seek a “sexually violent offender” designation for the defendant based on the out-of-state conviction because the defendant was required to register as a sex offender in Florida. * * *

We hold that the foreign registration clause, insofar as applied to the defendant, is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest, and therefore violates his substantive due process rights (see People v Brown, 41 NY3d at 284).

In particular, we agree with the Appellate Division, Fourth Department’s conclusion that, “[D]esignating [a] defendant as sexually violent merely because he [or she] had an out-of-state sex conviction requiring out-of-state registration, regardless of whether that underlying offense is violent—as is currently required by the text of Correction Law § 168-a(3)(b)—bears no rational relationship to the legitimate governmental interest of informing the public of threats posed by sex offenders” (People v Malloy, 228 AD3d at 1289).” People v Edwards, 2025 NY Slip Op 04922, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Here the Correction Law provision requiring that out-of-state sex offenders be classified as “sexually violent offenders” upon residing in New York was deemed unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, whose out-of-state offense was nonviolent.​

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION WAS ALLOWED TO SUE UNDER A PSEUDONYM, THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING DEFENDANTS FROM REVEALING PLAINTIFF’S IDENTITY TO THIRD PARTIES, INCLUDING WITNESSES AND INVESTIGATORS, WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT OF SPEECH (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the temporary restraining order prohibiting defendants from revealing plaintiff’s identity to third parties in this defamation action was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. Plaintiff had been allowed to sue under a pseudonym:

… Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants from disclosing the plaintiffs’ identities to third parties, sharing any statements or documents regarding the instant action, or discussing the instant action. “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 injunction issued in the area of First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution “must be tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of the case” … . Here, the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order was overbroad, such that it prevented the defendants from discussing the instant action with third-party witnesses or disclosing the plaintiffs’ names for investigative purposes … . Doe v Eliyas, 2025 NY Slip Op 04876, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when a restraining order prohibiting revealing the identity of a plaintiff suing under a pseudonym is an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech.

 

, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE FORFEITURE OF THE VEHICLE USED FOR FOOD VENDING WITHOUT A LICENSE IS “PUNITIVE” IN NATURE AND VIOLATES THE “EXCESSIVE FINES” CLAUSES OF THE NEW YORK STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; THE FINES IMPOSED FOR THE FOOD VENDING VIOLATION WERE $2600 AND THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE IS $40,000 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the forfeiture of Thomas Jones’ vehicle for food vending without a license violated the Excessive Fines clauses of both the State and Federal Constitutions. The vehicle was worth $40,000, and the fine imposed for vending without a license was $2600:

The City … commenced this proceeding in Supreme Court pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 17-321(c) and 17-322 to seize and order forfeiture of Jones’ truck. Administrative Code § 17—321(a) permits both public health officials and the police to enforce food vending codes. Section 17-321(c)(iii) permits police or public health officials to seize a food vending vehicle being used by an unlicensed vendor and any food being offered for sale. If forfeiture proceedings are not commenced, the vendor may be charged with the “reasonable costs for removal and storage payable prior to the release of such food, vehicle or pushcart.” Section 17—322(a) provides for forfeiture of “all property seized” from unlicensed food vendors “[i]n addition to any penalties imposed” pursuant to Section 17-325. Section 17-325(a) provides that vending food without a license is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to three months, or both. Section 17-325(c) provides for additional fines for unlicensed food vendors.

The motion court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there are questions of fact as to: (1) whether the forfeiture provision at issue is punitive in nature; and (2) whether the value of the property seized is so disproportional to the fines imposed and any harm to society that it violates the excessive fines clauses of the New York and United States Constitutions. We now affirm. City of New York v Jones, 2025 NY Slip Op 04842, First Dept 9-4-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of when forfeiture is deemed “punitive” in nature such that forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.

 

,

THE VIOLATIONS OF EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (12) BASED ON FALSE “STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION” (SFC’S) SUBMITTED TO OBTAIN LOANS FOR TRUMP ENTITIES WERE AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; HOWEVER THE RELATED “DISGORGEMENT” OF NEARLY HALF-A-BILLION DOLLARS WAS DEEMED AN EXCESSIVE FINE AND WAS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in three decisions issued by a divided court with no majority, determined the defendants violated Executive Law section 63 (12) by submitting deceptive business records to banks, insurance companies, and the NYC Parks Department. The suit alleged, for example, President Donald Trump submitted false “statements of financial condition” (SFC”s) to banks to obtain better loans for Trump entities. Supreme Court had ordered “disgorgement” of nearly half-a-billion dollars. The First Department held the “disgorgement” was an improper, excessive “fine” and vacated it. The fraud-based violations of the Executive Law remain standing, however. All expect the case to go to the Court of Appeals:

Defendants appeal from two decisions (and the resulting judgment) holding that defendants violated Executive Law § 63(12) by repeatedly submitting deceptive business records to banks, insurance companies, and the New York City Parks Department.

Presiding Justice Renwick and I [Justice Moulton] find that Supreme Court correctly found defendants liable. We agree with Supreme Court that the Attorney General acted well within her lawful power in bringing this action, and that she vindicated a public interest in doing so. We also find that Supreme Court properly ruled only on claims that are timely under the applicable statute of limitations. However, we would modify the remedy ordered by Supreme Court. While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

This decision is one of three issued by this Court today. Presiding Justice Renwick and I agree with our colleagues on certain points. Most importantly, we agree with Justice Higgitt, who is joined by Justice Rosado, that the Attorney General is empowered by Executive Law § 63(12) to bring this action. However, our remaining disagreements with our colleagues’ decisions are profound. In sum, Justice Friedman finds that Supreme Court’s rulings are infirm in almost every respect and would hold that the Attorney General had no power to bring this case under Executive Law § 63(12). He would dismiss the complaint outright. Justice Higgitt, while agreeing that the Attorney General had the power to bring this lawsuit, finds that errors made by Supreme Court require a new trial limited to only some of the transactions in question. * * *

Because none of the three decisions garners a majority, Justices Higgitt and Rosado join the decretal of this decision for the sole purpose of ensuring finality, thereby affording the parties a path for appeal to the Court of Appeals. People v Trump, 2025 NY Slip Op 04756, First Dept 8-21-25

Practice Point: Here “disgorgement” of nearly a half billion dollars for fraud-related violations of the Executive Law (stemming from submission of false “statements of financial condition” to obtain loans for Trump entities) was deemed an excessive fine and was vacated by the First Department.

 

, , , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER WAS SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION PROHIBITING THE FATHER’S CONTACT WITH HER AND THE CHILDREN; THE PROOF IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST MOTHER DID NOT MATCH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION; THE JUDGE EFFECTIVELY AMENDED THE PETITION BY IMPROPERLY CONFORMING THE PETITION TO SERIOUSLY CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY PROOF; MOTHER WAS NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY ADDRESS THE “AMENDED” PETITION; NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating the neglect finding against mother, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rosada, determined there was insufficient support in the record for the judge’s resolution of conflicting evidence, which amounted to an amendment of the petition to conform to the proof. Mother was never given the opportunity to address the judge’s sua sponte amendment of the petition, a violation of due process. In addition, there was no proof mother was served with an order of protection prohibiting father’s contact with the children (it was alleged mother left the children in father’s care when she was hospitalized). The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here:

… ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] failed to adduce any proof of actual or imminent danger of physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the children in remaining in a home with the father and M.H. [paternal grandmother] during the mother’s brief hospitalization … . * * *

… Family Court unduly relied upon the contradictory testimony of Trazile [CPS worker] and M.H. in rendering its determination that respondent neglected the children. While credibility determinations of Family Court are normally accorded due deference … , the determination here “lacks a sound and substantial evidentiary basis,” and the court should have dismissed the petition (… see also Family Ct Act § 1051[c]). The court credited the testimonies of both Trazile and M.H., which together presented three markedly different and contradictory accounts of how the children came to be in M.H.’s care. Significantly, all three accounts are departures from the allegations set forth in the amended petition.

While the court is empowered sua sponte to conform the pleadings to the proof, as it arguably did here via its restatement of the allegations in its written decision, Family Ct Act § 1051(b) requires that in such cases, the respondent be given reasonable time to prepare to answer the amended allegations, which was not done here … . “Absent additional allegations set forth in an amended petition that conforms to the proof with notice to the respondent, the court must not base a finding of neglect on allegations not set forth in the petition” … . Matter of Kaius A. v Abigail H., 2025 NY Slip Op 04692, First Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: If Family Court is confronted with internally inconsistent and contradictory proof which does not match the allegations in the neglect petition, the petition should be dismissed.

Practice Point: If mother is accused of violating an order of protection, there must be proof she was served with the order.

Practice Point: Although Family Court has the power to sua sponte conform a neglect petition to the proof by issuing findings of fact, due process requites that mother be given the opportunity to address the “new” allegations in the “amended” petition.

 

, ,

A FOREIGN DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ACCORDED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN NEW YORK BY A PLENARY ACTION OR A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT; THERE IS NO NEED FOR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Braithwaite Nelson, determined New York need not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant to have a North Carolina money judgment recognized in New York. After obtaining a default judgment in North Carolina, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213:

To facilitate fulfilling this constitutional obligation and to assist in the enforcement of judgments entitled to full faith and credit, the New York Legislature adopted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (hereinafter the Foreign Judgments Act) (CPLR art 54), which provides a simple procedure by which a judgment creditor may file an authenticated copy of a judgment rendered by a court entitled to full faith and credit in New York … . Once filed, and after certain other conditions have been met … , the foreign judgment shall be treated in the same manner as a judgment of New York and may be enforced in like manner as a judgment rendered in New York … . There is no explicit requirement in the Foreign Judgments Act that New York have personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor before the foreign judgment may be filed and treated as a New York judgment.

A judgment that was obtained by a default in appearance, however, is not eligible for the streamlined process afforded by the Foreign Judgments Act … . Where a judgment was entered on a default in appearance, full faith and credit may be accorded by the commencement of a plenary action or by a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint … . * * *

In seeking recognition and enforcement of an out-of-state judgment entitled to full faith and credit, “‘the judgment creditor does not seek any new relief against the judgment debtor, but instead merely asks the court to perform its ministerial function of recognizing the [out-of-state] money judgment and converting it into a New York judgment'” … . Here, the defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of the North Carolina court or otherwise contend that he was denied due process in that court. Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v Simms, 2025 NY Slip Op 04541, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: A foreign default judgment may be accorded full faith and credit in New York by a plenary action or a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. There is no need for personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

 

, ,

CPLR 7003(1), WHICH REQUIRES A JUDGE TO FORFEIT $1000 FOR AN IMPROPER DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION AND AS A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a comprehensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Golia, in a matter of first impression, determined CPLR 7003(1), which requires a judge to forfeit $1000 when a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief is improperly denied, is unconstitutional. The statute violates the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine:

… [W]hile CPLR 7003(c) is not a direct diminution of judicial compensation, the language of that provision explicitly “targets judges for disadvantageous treatment,” as it provides that a $1,000 forfeiture be paid personally by a judge who does not issue a writ of habeas corpus where one should have been issued … . CPLR 7003(c) is, thus, an indirect diminution of the salary of judges within the meaning of the Compensation Clause of the New York State Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that “[b]y its nature, CPLR 7003(c) singles out judges for financially adverse treatment because of their exercise of their judicial functions and does so in a manner that discriminates based on how they decide an application for a writ. To impose a forfeiture on a judge based on which way they decide an application undermines the core objective of the [C]ompensation [C]lause of protecting judicial independence.” * * *

By imposing a penalty on a judge who refuses a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus [*14]relief where such relief should have been issued, the Legislature, through CPLR 7003(c), is interfering with judicial functions by incentivizing one specific outcome, namely, issuance of the writ, because a judge only faces a penalty if he or she refuses to issue a writ. Such influence is impermissible, as “‘the mere existence of the power to interfere with or to influence the exercise of judicial functions contravenes the fundamental principles of separation of powers embodied in our State constitution and cannot be sustained'” … . Poltorak v Clarke, 2025 NY Slip Op 04496, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: CPLR 7003(1) requires a judge to forfeit $1000 for an improper denial of habeas corpus relief. The statute violates the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine.

 

, ,

A COURT CANNOT MANDATE A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS EXERCISE FOR A CHILD (ORDERING THAT A CHILD ATTEND A SPECIFIC CHURCH FOR EXAMPLE); RATHER, THE COURT SHOULD DESIGNATE A PARENT TO HAVE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY OVER A CHILD’S RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND EXCERCISE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the order that a child “shall attend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints …” was unconstitutional in that it mandated specific religious exercise:

… [T]he court’s order that the parties’ middle child “shall attend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints every Sunday” except for six Sundays per year when the mother has access with the child, is unconstitutional insofar as it mandates specific religious exercise … . … [W]e remit the matter to Family Court to designate which parent will have decision-making authority for that child’s religious education and practice. Matter of Clark v Strassburg, 2025 NY Slip Op 04390, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: It is unconstitutional for a court, in the context of a Family Court proceeding, to order that a child attend a particular church. The court should designate a parent to have decision-making authority over a child’s religious education and practice.

 

, , , ,

COUNTY COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY FAILING TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT IT INTENDED TO ASSESS POINTS IN THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING THAT WERE NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD OR PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE; NEW HEARING ORDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court and ordering a new SORA risk assessment hearing, determined County Court violated defendant’s right to due process of law by failing to notify defendant it intended to assess points that were not recommended by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders or proposed by the People. Although the defendant did not object to the assessment, the Fourth Department exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction and considered the appeal. People v Buckmaster, 2025 NY Slip Op 04378, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Defendants are entitled to notice that the court intends to assess points in a SORA risk-level proceeding that were not recommended by the Board or proposed by the People. Failure to provide notice is a violation of due process.​

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy