You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , , , ,

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

 

, , ,

INSURERS MAY PROPERLY REFUSE NO-FAULT INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY NONPHYSICIANS, THERE IS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE FRAUDULENT INTENT OR CONDUCT TANTAMOUNT TO FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; ANY ERROR IN ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR NONPARTY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH THE NONPARTIES REPEATEDLY ASSERTED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS HARMLESS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined that the defendant insurers properly refused to make no-fault insurance payments to plaintiff professional corporation because the corporation was owned and controlled by nonphysicians. The court specifically held that fraudulent intent or conduct “tantamount to fraud” need not be demonstrated. The court noted that allowing in evidence the deposition testimony of two nonparties (nonphysicians who allegedly controlled the professional corporation), in which the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was repeatedly asserted, if it was error (not determined), was harmless:

… [A]n insurance carrier, seeking to demonstrate that a professional service corporation engaged in corporate practices that violate Business Corporation Law § 1507, Business Corporation Law § 1508, or Education Law § 6507 (4) (c), [need not] show that the professional service corporation or its managers engaged in common-law fraud. … A corporate practice that shows “willful and material failure to abide by” licensing and incorporation statutes … may support a finding that the provider is not an eligible recipient of reimbursement under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) without meeting the traditional elements of common-law fraud. * * *

While the Fifth Amendment accords an individual the privilege not to answer questions in a civil proceeding if the answers might incriminate the person in future criminal proceedings … , a witness who asserts this Fifth Amendment privilege in a civil trial is not necessarily protected from consequences in the same manner as in a criminal trial. This Court has held that, in a civil case, failure to answer questions by a witness who is a party “may be considered by a jury in assessing the strength of evidence offered by the opposite party on the issue which the witness was in a position to controvert” … . In a civil trial, “an unfavorable inference may be drawn against a party from the exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination” … . We have not previously decided whether a nonparty’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment may trigger an adverse inference instruction against a party in a civil case, and we have no occasion to do so here because any error by the trial court was harmless … . Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 04643, CtApp 6-11-19

 

,

BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS REQUIRE THE SAME BLOCKBURGER TEST FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the test for double jeopardy under the state constitution is the same as under the federal constitution:

“Under the Federal Constitution, double jeopardy arises only upon separate prosecutions arising out of the same offence’ ” … . The United States Supreme Court employs a “same-elements” test, also known as the Blockburger test (Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299 [1932]), that “inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the same offence’ and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution” … . Here, the elements of DWI (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]) and leaving the scene of a property damage incident without reporting (see § 600 [1] [a]) are not the same; among other things, a person does not need to be intoxicated to be found guilty of leaving the scene of a property damage incident without reporting, and does not need to cause property damage to be found guilty of DWI. …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clauses in the State and Federal Constitutions are nearly identically worded, and we have never suggested that state constitutional double jeopardy protection differs from its federal counterpart” … , the Court of Appeals set forth the Blockburger test, not the same conduct test, when analyzing a defendant’s claim that the double jeopardy clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions barred a subsequent prosecution. We therefore conclude that the constitutional double jeopardy analysis is the same under federal and state law, and that there is no constitutional double jeopardy violation here … . Matter of McNerlin v Argento, 2019 NY Slip Op 04554, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

THE LABOR LAW’S EXCLUSION OF FARM WORKERS FROM THE DEFINITION OF ‘EMPLOYEES’ ENTITLED TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY VIOLATES THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the NYS Employment Relations Act (SERA) is unconstitutional to the extent it excludes farm workers from the definition of “employees” given the right to organize and collectively bargain under the Act (Labor Law 701 [3] [a]):

… [P]laintiffs alleged that the farm laborer exclusion violates several provisions of the NY Constitution, including the right to organize and collectively bargain guaranteed to “[e]mployees” by article I, § 17 (first cause of action), the right to equal protection (second cause of action) (see NY Const, art I, § 11), the right to due process under the law (third cause of action) (see NY Const, art I, § 6), and the right to freedom of association (fourth cause of action) (see NY Const, art I, § 9).  * * *

… [T]he choice to use the broad and expansive word “employees” in NY Constitution, article I, § 17, without qualification or restriction, was a deliberate one that was meant to afford the constitutional right to organize and collectively bargain to any person who fits within the plain and ordinary meaning of that word … . * * *

… [W]e are firmly convinced that the constitutional right bestowed upon “employees” in this state “to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” (NY Const, art I, § 17) is a fundamental right, and that any statute impairing this right must withstand strict scrutiny … . Under strict scrutiny review, a statute that infringes upon a fundamental right is “void unless necessary to promote a compelling [s]tate interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose”… . …

… [W]e declare that the exclusion of “individuals employed as farm laborers” from SERA’s definition of the term “employees,” set forth in Labor Law § 701 (3) (a), is unconstitutional as a matter of law. Hernandez v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04065, Third Dept 5-23-19

 

, , ,

MOLINEUX/SANDOVAL HEARING IN THE HARVEY WEINSTEIN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT PROSECUTION WAS PROPERLY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AND THE RECORD OF THE HEARING WAS PROPERLY SEALED, NEWS-MEDIA COMPANIES’ PETITION TO UNSEAL THE RECORD DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the Article 78 petition brought by news-media companies seeking to unseal the Molineux/Sandoval hearing transcript in the felony sexual misconduct prosecution of Harvey Weinstein. The presiding judge had closed the hearing to the public and sealed the record of it:

While the First Amendment guarantees the public and the press a qualified right of access to criminal trials … , this right of access may be limited where courtroom closure is necessitated by a compelling state governmental interest, and where the closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest … . Such compelling interests may include the defendant’s right to a fair trial, including the right to “fundamental fairness in the jury selection process” … . …

Proceedings cannot be closed unless specific findings are made on the record, demonstrating that “closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest” … . Where the interest asserted is the right of the accused to a fair trial, specific findings must be made demonstrating that, “there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent,” and “reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant’s fair trial rights” … .

The subject matter of the Molineux /Sandoval hearing – allegations of prior uncharged sexual offenses by the defendant, the admissibilty of which is disputed – was likely to be prejudicial and inflammatory. Further, some or all of the allegations may have been determined to be inadmissible at trial, or may not be offered at trial even if found potentially admissible. Contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, the People have represented that some of the information has not yet been made public. Matter of New York Times Co. v Burke, 2019 NY Slip Op 03903, First Dept 5-16-19

 

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