You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , ,

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

 

,

OHIO FIREARMS DEALER DID NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK SUFFICIENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER HIM, A GUN PURCHASED IN OHIO BY AN OHIO RESIDENT WAS SOLD ON THE BLACK MARKET IN NEW YORK AND WAS USED IN NEW YORK TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurring opinion and a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that an Ohio firearms dealer (Brown) did not have “minimum contacts” with New York sufficient for the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction (CPLR 302) over him. A gun sold by Brown to Bostic, an Ohio resident, in Ohio, was sold on the black market to a member of a gang in Buffalo, New York, who shot plaintiff:

Defendant Charles Brown, a federal firearm licensee, was authorized to sell handguns only in Ohio and only to Ohio residents, which he primarily accomplished through retail sales at gun shows held in various locations in Ohio. Brown did not maintain a website, had no retail store or business telephone listing, and did no advertising of any kind, except by posting a sign at his booth when participating in a gun show. In a series of transactions in 2000, Brown sold handguns to James Nigel Bostic and his associates. Prior to the transaction involving the gun at issue here, Brown consulted with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to ensure its legality. For each transaction, the necessary forms required by the ATF were properly completed and submitted, the purchaser passed the required Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check before the firearms were transferred, Brown verified that the purchaser had government-issued identification demonstrating Ohio residency, and notification of the purchases was timely sent to local law enforcement and the ATF as required by the federal Gun Control Act (see 18 USC § 922). During the transactions, Bostic indicated he was in the process of becoming a federal firearms licensee and was acquiring inventory for the eventual opening of a gun shop. * * *

… “[A] non-domiciliary tortfeasor has minimum contacts with the forum State . . . if it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State” …,”thus invoking the benefits and protections of [the forum state’s] laws”… . This test envisions something more than the “fortuitous circumstance” that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of defendant … . Put another way, “the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum” cannot establish the requisite connection between defendant and the forum “such that [defendant] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there” … .

The constitutional inquiry “focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation'” … . Significantly, “it is the defendant’s conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction” … . Williams v Beemiller, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03656, CtApp 5-9-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT HAD SERVED HIS ENTIRE SENTENCE BY THE TIME THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED, THE IMPOSITION OF MORE PRISON TIME UPON HIS SUBSEQUENT PLEA TO THE ASSAULT SECOND CHARGE VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT REQUESTING TIME SERVED, BECAUSE THE ERROR AFFECTED THE VOLUNTARINESS OF DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA THE WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and set aside the sentence should have been granted. The court noted that the waiver of appeal did not apply because the alleged error affected the voluntariness of the guilty plea. At the time defendant’s assault second conviction was overturned he had completed his sentence. When he subsequently pled guilty to the assault second charge more prison time was imposed. That violated the prohibition against double jeopardy (punished twice for the same offense). Defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing defendant must be sentenced to time served:

At the time of remittal, it was clear that, more than 15 years earlier, defendant had been sentenced to seven years in prison for his conviction of assault in the second degree, which was the maximum permissible sentence for a second violent felony offender convicted of that crime … . It was also clear that his assault conviction had been overturned on appeal. These facts and circumstances alone would have alerted a reasonably competent attorney to the possibility that any subsequent sentence that included additional prison time might violate the constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments and, by extension, prompted an inquiry into the amount of time that defendant had already served in prison on his 2001 assault conviction. It is evident from the record that defense counsel did not recognize or investigate the obvious potential double jeopardy concern at the time of remittal for, if she had, she would have determined — as the People concede — that defendant had already served the maximum permissible prison term for assault in the second degree and, therefore, could be sentenced only to time served … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 02586, Third Dept 4-4-19

 

,

PROSECUTION FOR CONSPIRACY TO MURDER AFTER MURDER TRIAL RESULTED IN MANSLAUGHTER AND GANG ASSAULT CONVICTIONS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined prosecuting defendant for conspiracy to commit murder, after a trial for the murder resulted in a conviction for manslaughter and gang assault, did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy:

Defendant’s prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder, after a prior prosecution for the actual murder resulted in a trial conviction for manslaughter and gang assault, did not violate the federal or state double jeopardy prohibitions, because conspiracy is not the same offense, for double jeopardy purposes, as murder, manslaughter, or gang assault … . “The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not” (Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299, 304 [1932] [citations omitted]). Neither the fact that the evidence at the homicide trial would have also supported a conspiracy charge, nor the fact that defendant had been alleged to have acted in concert with other persons, has any relevance under the Blockburger test. People v Herrera, 2019 NY Slip Op 02631, First Dept 4-4-19

 

, , ,

JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF NOTICE AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint as abandoned without giving plaintiff a chance to be heard in this foreclosure action:

… [B]y notice of motion dated August 15, 2014, the plaintiff … moved, inter alia, to extend its time to serve a copy of the order of reference with notice of entry … , nunc pro tunc, to March 23, 2007 (hereinafter the second extension of time motion). In an order dated February 26, 2015 (hereinafter the February 2015 order), the Supreme Court denied the second extension of time motion, and, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint as abandoned, noting, inter alia, that “[t]he order of reference at issue was signed in 2007” and the appointed referee was no longer on the fiduciary list. …

The Supreme Court’s sua sponte determination to direct dismissal of the complaint deprived the plaintiff of notice and opportunity to be heard and amounted to a denial of the plaintiff’s due process rights (see CPLR 3216 … ). Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to vacate the February 2015 order. Chase Home Fin., LLC v Plaut, 2019 NY Slip Op 02494, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, ,

THE POLICE-OFFICER WITNESS, WHO DID TESTIFY AT TRIAL, DID NOT REMEMBER THE INCIDENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED BECAUSE THE WITNESS TESTIFIED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined that the police-officer witness’s grand jury testimony was properly admitted under the “past recollection recorded” exception to the hearsay rule. The grand jury testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the officer, who could not remember the incident he described to the grand jury, did, in fact, testify at trial:

The foundational requirements for the admissibility of a past recollection recorded are: 1) the witness must have observed the matter recorded; 2) the recollection must have been fairly fresh at the time when it was recorded; 3) the witness must currently be able to testify that the record is a correct representation of his or her knowledge and recollection at the time it was made; and 4) the witness must lack sufficient present recollection of the information recorded … . “When such a memorandum is admitted, it is not independent evidence of the facts contained therein, but is supplementary to the testimony of the witness. * * *

… [T]he right to confrontation guarantees not only the right to cross-examine all witnesses, but also the ability to literally confront the witness who is providing testimony against the accused in a face-to-face encounter before the trier of fact … . The Confrontation Clause is satisfied when these requirements are fulfilled — even if the witness’s memory is faulty. The United States Supreme Court has directly addressed the situation where a witness was unable to explain the basis for a prior out-of-court identification due to memory loss … . In Owens, the Court held that “[t]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish” … . To that end, “[i]t is sufficient that the defendant has the opportunity to bring out such matters as the witness’ bias, his lack of care and attentiveness, his poor eyesight, and even (what is often a prime objective of cross-examination), . . . the very fact that he has a bad memory” … . People v Tapia, 2019 NY Slip Op 02442, CtApp 4-2-19

 

, ,

SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR STATEMENTS MADE WHILE A CANDIDATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the Supremacy Clause did not preclude a New York State civil suit for defamation against President Trump. In response to allegations by the plaintiff that Donald Trump had made unwanted sexual advances, then candidate Trump made statements denying the allegations (made by plaintiff and other women), calling them false and outright lies saying, for example, “all of these liars will be sued after the election is over:”

… [T]he current sitting President attempts to shield himself from consequences for his alleged unofficial misconduct by relying upon the constitutional protection of the Presidency. We reject defendant President Trump’s argument that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prevents a New York State court – and every other state court in the country – from exercising its authority under its state constitution. Instead, we find that the Supremacy Clause was never intended to deprive a state court of its authority to decide cases and controversies under the state’s constitution.

… [T]he Supremacy Clause provides that federal law supersedes state law with which it conflicts, but it does not provide that the President himself is immune from state law that does not conflict with federal law. Since there is no federal law conflicting with or displacing this defamation action, the Supremacy Clause does not provide a basis for immunizing the President from state court civil damages actions. Moreover, in the absence of a federal law limiting state court jurisdiction, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, it follows that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendant and properly denied his motion to dismiss. Zervos v Trump, 2019 NY Slip Op 01851, First Dept 3-14-19

 

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