You are here: / Constitutional Law
, ,

PLAINTIFF CHURCH’S OBJECTION TO THE SYNOD’S TAKING CONTROL OF A SCHOOL OPERATED BY PLAINTIFF CHURCH IS A RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY WHICH IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN STATE COURTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined three causes of action in a lawsuit brought by a church (Eltingville) against the Synod and its Bishop (stemming from the Synod’s decision to place a school owned and operated by Eltingville under its control) were not justiciable in state courts because of the constitutional separation of church and state:

… [T]he complaint challenged the Synod’s determination to impose synodical administration upon Eltingville. Such a determination could only be made upon finding that “the membership of a congregation has become so scattered or so diminished in numbers as to make it impractical for such a congregation to fulfill the purposes for which it was organized or that it is necessary for this synod to protect the congregation’s property from waste and deterioration” (Synod’s Constitution § 13.24; see Religious Corporations Law § 17-c[2][a][iii]). A Synod’s determination to impose synodical administration on a local church is a nonjusticiable religious determination … . Eltingville Lutheran Church v Rimbo, 2019 NY Slip Op 05957, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING A WARRANTLESS PAROLE SEARCH AT A TIME WHEN DEFENDANT’S POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) HAD BEEN IMPOSED ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; BECAUSE THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF JUDICIAL IMPOSITION OF PRS IS NOW CLEAR, SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE NO DETERRENT EFFECT AND IS NOT THEREFORE NECESSARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the ammunition seized during a warrantless parole search of defendant’s residence, and which was connected to a shooting, was not subject to suppression. At the time of the search, defendant’s post release supervision (PRS) had been imposed administratively and not by a judge–a procedure which has since been rendered invalid by statute. The Fourth Department held that, under these facts, the exclusionary rule, which usually requires suppression of the fruits of a warrantless search, would have no deterrent effect and need not be applied:

… [T]he improper conduct sought to be deterred by application of the exclusionary rule in this case is the unauthorized administrative imposition of PRS by a state entity rather than a sentencing judge. In that regard, defendant contends that the state criminal justice system disregarded the Second Circuit’s decision in Earley v Murray (451 F3d 71 [2d Cir 2006]), which held that the administrative imposition of PRS is unconstitutional … , and he contends that application of the exclusionary rule here is necessary to deter similar “misconduct” in the future. We reject that contention.

First, when the parole search took place, in 2007, the issue whether it is proper for the state to administratively impose PRS had not yet been settled … . Second, and more importantly, it is now settled as a matter of state statutory law that only a court may lawfully pronounce a term of PRS as a component of a sentence … and, consequently, all the relevant government actors are now well aware of the law. Under the circumstances, the deterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule is marginal or nonexistent … . People v Lloyd, 2019 NY Slip Op 05855, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S FINANCIAL INFORMATION AFTER THE COUNTY ETHICS COMMITTEE DENIED THE DISCLOSURE-REQUEST MADE BY A NEWSPAPER; THE LEGISLATURE USURPED THE POWER OF A REVIEWING COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department annulled a resolution adopted by the Suffolk County Legislature specifically allowing the publication of the financial disclosure information provided to the County Ethics Board by an assistant district attorney. A newspaper initially made the request of the Ethics Board. The request was denied and the newspaper did not seek review of the denial. The Legislature, in direct response to the denial of the newspaper’s request,  took it upon itself to adopt the resolution allowing the information to be made public. The Second Department held that the Legislature did not have the authority to essentially act as a reviewing court by passing a resolution addressed to a specific circumstance:

The County Legislature was established to determine County policies and to exercise other functions as may be assigned to it by law … . The County Legislature exercises the County’s powers of local legislation and appropriations … . The County Legislature has broad powers to enact local legislation. However, it is fundamental that legislative power does not extend so far as to apply the rules of law to particular cases, as the power to adjudicate the applicability of the law to individual situations is a judicial power … . A legislative body may not usurp a court’s power to interpret and apply the law to the particular circumstances before it … . Thus, it was beyond the authority of the County Legislature to determine that the Ethics Board’s decision to withhold the petitioner’s financial disclosure statements from public inspection was incorrect and to take it upon itself to obtain the statements and provide for their public release. Put another way, the County Legislature wrongly placed itself in the position of a reviewing court. This is particularly disturbing where the purportedly aggrieved newspaper took no steps to vindicate its rights to disclosure of the financial statements by the Ethics Board. Matter of Prudenti v Suffolk County Legislature, 2019 NY Slip Op 05779, Second Dept 7-24-19

 

, ,

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE ON BEHALF OF THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT KNOWINGLY CONSENT AND DID NOT MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THE PROSECUTION; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rumsey, determined that the special prosecutor did not have the authority to prosecute a substance abuse counselor who allegedly sexually abused a 16-year-old patient. The special prosecutor was from the Justice Center for Protection of People with Special Needs. Because the special prosecutor did not have have the knowing and express consent to the prosecution by the district attorney, the indictment was dismissed:

In 2012, the Legislature enacted the Protection of People with Special Needs Act (Executive Law § 550 et seq.) to protect individuals “who are vulnerable because of their reliance on professional caregivers to help them overcome physical, cognitive and other challenges” … by creating a new state agency, the Justice Center, and mandating, among other things, that it employ a special prosecutor appointed by the Governor (hereinafter the Special Prosecutor) to investigate and prosecute criminal offenses involving abuse and neglect of vulnerable persons by employees of specified types of facilities and service agencies … . Although the Act specifically authorizes the Special Prosecutor to “exercise all the powers and perform all the duties in respect of such actions or proceedings which the district attorney would otherwise be authorized or required to exercise or perform”… , it also prohibits the Special Prosecutor from “interfer[ing] with the ability of district attorneys at any time to receive complaints, investigate and prosecute any suspected abuse or neglect” … . …

… [T]here is no constitutional support for the Legislature’s attempt to provide for “the gubernatorial appointment of a non-elected special prosecutor, independent of the [d]istrict [a]ttorneys and with unfettered prosecutorial power” … . …

We turn … to consideration of whether the Albany County District Attorney validly consented to prosecution of defendant by the Special Prosecutor. … [T]he District Attorney did not exercise his essential prosecutorial power to determine whether defendant should be prosecuted but, rather, merely acquiesced in the prosecution by the Special Prosecutor, whom he mistakenly believed already possessed the independent power to prosecute defendant. Second, the District Attorney failed to expressly retain ultimate responsibility for defendant’s prosecution … . People v Hodgdon, 2019 NY Slip Op 05596, Third Dept 7-11-19

 

, , , , ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ONLY CONNECTION TO THE CORPORATION WHICH HAD CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK WAS HIS SALARY; THEREFORE THE CORPORATION’S NEW YORK CONTACTS COULD NOT BE IMPUTED TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Sprinkle’s) motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted, noting that Sprinkle’s only connection with the corporation alleged to have breached the contract was his salary. The corporation’s contacts with New York could not, therefore, be imputed to Sprinkle:

The complaint fails to state a cause of action as against Sprinkle for tortious interference with contract, because there is no allegation that Sprinkle personally benefitted from the corporations’ alleged breach of contract; the only benefit he is alleged to have received is his salary from the corporations … .

Plaintiff failed to make a sufficient start on a showing of jurisdiction over Sprinkle to entitle it to jurisdictional discovery … . Because the conduct complained of involved the diversion of funds from outside New York to recipients outside New York, the “critical events,” and thus the situs of injury, were not in New York … . Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that Sprinkle received substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce (see CPLR 302[a][3][ii]). Because Sprinkle did not personally benefit from the breach of contract, the corporations’ contacts with New York cannot be imputed to him … .

Nor can Sprinkle be said to have “reasonably expected” his actions to have consequences in New York … as he neither did anything to avail himself of New York nor took any steps to project himself into New York. Given that Sprinkle had no contact with New York and did not purposefully avail himself of New York, the constitutional guarantee of due process bars New York courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over him. Greenbacker Residential Solar LLC v OneRoof Energy, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05487, First Dept 7-9-19

 

,

THE CONSTRUCTION OF 27 MILES OF SNOWMOBILE TRAILS IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK WOULD VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION’S PROHIBITION OF THE DESTRUCTION OF TIMBER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, over a dissent, determined that the proposed construction of 27 miles of snowmobile trails in the Adirondack Park required the removal of timber and therefore would violate the New York State Constitution:

NY Constitution, article XIV, § 1 states, in relevant part, that “[t]he lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the [F]orest [P]reserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.” * * *

Although this project did not involve clear-cutting or the removal of a large swath of trees … , but instead necessitated destruction of narrow corridors of trees for many miles, we need to consider the entire project when determining its effects. The destruction of a substantial number of trees can be problematic whether those trees were together or spread out along one or more portions of the Forest Preserve. For example, the construction of these trails required the destruction, on average per mile, of over 200 trees at least three inches DBH and approximately 925 trees of all sizes. It would be anomalous to conclude that destroying 925 trees per mile of trails, or approximately 25,000 trees in total, does not constitute the destruction of timber “to a substantial extent” or “to any material degree” … . Thus, the construction of the Class II trails resulted in, or would result in, an unconstitutional destruction of timber in the Forest Preserve. Protect the Adirondacks! Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2019 NY Slip Op 05363, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, ,

THE LAW REQUIRING THAT SEX OFFENDERS CANNOT RESIDE WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN AS APPLIED TO AN OFFENDER WHOSE SEX OFFENSES INVOLVED ADULTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice concurrence, determined defendant sex offender, in this habeas corpus proceeding, was not entitled to release on parole on the ground that the law prohibiting him from residing within 1000 feet of school grounds was unconstitutional. The concurrence called into question the effects of the law. Petitioner’s sex offenses involved adults, not children:

… [A]lthough the open parole release date granted to petitioner cannot be revoked absent procedural due process, we are unpersuaded that he has a further “liberty interest [or] fundamental right . . . to be free from special conditions of parole” regarding his residence under either the Federal or the State Constitution … . …

… [P]etitioner has not satisfied his “heavy burden of showing that [Executive Law § 259-c (14)] is ‘so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes’ as to be irrational” … . Petitioner may or may not be correct when he says that the mandatory condition does not achieve its legitimate goals, but the argument that there are “better or wiser ways to achieve the law’s stated objectives” must be addressed to the Legislature … . Thus, the mandatory condition comports with substantive due process, and petitioner is not entitled to immediate release. People ex rel. Johnson v Superintendent, Adirondack Corr. Facility, 2019 NY Slip Op 05359, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, ,

FATHER, WHO DID NOT SUBMIT A PETITION FOR CUSTODY, WAS PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF HIS FITNESS AS A PARENT IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY MOTHER; FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; ALTHOUGH FATHER DID NOT OBJECT, THE APPELLATE COURT HAS INHERENT AUTHORITY TO CORRECT FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father was deprived of due process of law because he was not allowed to put in evidence of his fitness as a parent in this custody proceeding brought by mother. Father did not file a custody petition. For that reason Family Court refused to allow father to put in evidence. The Third Department noted father did not object at trial but exercised its inherent authority to correct fundamental errors:

An initial custody determination must be based upon the best interests of the child, taking into account all relevant factors, including “the parents’ past performance and relative fitness, their willingness to foster a positive relationship between the child and the other parent, as well as their ability to maintain a stable home environment and provide for the child’s overall well-being” … . By this standard, the court must assess the qualifications of both parents in determining what custody determination best serves the interests of the child. In its decision, Family Court expressly held that because the father did not also file a custody petition, it could “only take into consideration the testimony brought by the mother.” There were several instances during the trial where the court precluded testimony from the father and his witness because he did not file a petition. As a result, the father was prevented from addressing all of the relevant factors, including who should be the primary custodian and what he did to foster a relationship between the child and the mother. The father’s stepfather was precluded from testifying as to his observations of the father as a parent. The father was allowed to briefly testify as to his average day with the child at the conclusion of testimony … . …

We are mindful that the father did not raise any objections at trial to Family Court’s evidentiary limitations. We are also mindful that the father was able to briefly testify as to his interactions with the child. That said, this court has inherent authority to exercise its discretion and correct fundamental errors … . In our view, the court’s failure to allow the father a full and fair opportunity to present evidence, coupled with the court’s own limitations on its decision, constitutes a fundamental due process error requiring reversal of Family Court’s order … . Matter of Liska J. v Benjamin K., 2019 NY Slip Op 05347, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, ,

FATHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE SUSPENSION OF HIS COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT WAS REVOKED; THE ISSUE IS APPEALABLE EVEN THOUGH FATHER HAS SERVED HIS TERM OF INCARCERATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father should have been given the opportunity to be heard and present witnesses on the issue of whether good cause existed for the revocation of the suspension of his commitment to jail for nonpayment of child support. The court noted that the matter was not academic, even though father has already served his term of incarceration:

… “[D]ue to the enduring consequences which may potentially flow from the revocation of the order suspending the father’s commitment” … , these appeals are not academic, even if the father has served his term of incarceration before the appeals are determined.

Turning to the merits, “[t]he court may suspend an order of commitment upon reasonable conditions and is also authorized to revoke such suspension at any time for good cause shown” (… see Family Ct Act § 455[1]). However, given the liberty interest at stake, the Family Court, before revoking a suspension, must provide to a respondent an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses on the issue of whether good cause exists to revoke the suspension … . Here, because the father was deprived of this opportunity, we must reverse the orders appealed from and remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing and a determination thereafter of whether good cause exists to revoke the suspension. Matter of Zhuo Hong Zheng v Hsin Cheng, 2019 NY Slip Op 04958, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

, ,

A FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE APPLIES ONLY IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, THEREFORE DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY A PSYCHIATRIST WHO DID NOT TESTIFY WERE ADMISSIBLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined father’s right to confront witnesses in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding was not violated by the admission in evidence of two documents written by a psychiatrist who did not testify. A Family Court proceeding is civil in nature and the Confrontation Clause applies only in criminal matters:

Although the father’s contention is framed in terms of a violation of his right to confront the witnesses against him, “Family Court matters are civil in nature and the Confrontation Clause applies only to criminal matters” … . In addition, while every litigant has a right, guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions, to confront the witnesses against them … , “this right is not absolute” in civil actions … . The Family Court Act permits the admission of hearsay at dispositional hearings if such evidence is “material and relevant” … . Here, because the father did not object to either the relevancy or materiality of the challenged exhibits, we conclude that the exhibits were properly admitted in evidence … . Matter of Ramon F. (Wilson F.), 2019 NY Slip Op 04852, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

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