You are here: / Constitutional Law
, ,

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

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF ON A SUBWAY FOR A TRANSIT VIOLATION, THE CONCURRENCE CALLED INTO QUESTION THE ‘TRANSIT DATABASE’ WHICH PROBABLY INCLUDES PERSONS WHOSE CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE SEALED AND DISMISSED, THE DATABASE DOES NOT PROVIDE A DISTINCT BASIS FOR ARREST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a concurrence, determined that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff based on the transit offense of passing between two subway cars on a moving train. Because there was probable cause, the majority did not reach the issue of the fairness or constitutionality of a so-called “transit database” which encompasses so-called “transit recidivists.” The concurrence made it clear that plaintiff’s designation as a “transit recidivist” did not provide the police with a separate basis to arrest plaintiff:

From the concurrence:

It must be said that plaintiff’s designation as a transit recidivist did not give the officers a separate basis to arrest plaintiff … . The definition of “transit recidivist” at the time of plaintiff’s arrest encompassed not only persons convicted of crimes, but those with prior arrests in the transit system or prior felony arrests within New York City … . This overbroad classification subverted the presumption of innocence and likely violated state sealing laws. …

… [T]he database was likely contaminated by sealed arrests and summons histories and, as such, ran afoul of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law that require that the records of any criminal prosecution terminating in a person’s favor or by way of noncriminal conviction be sealed …  Statistics … indicate that in 2016 alone, over 50% of all criminal cases arraigned in New York City Criminal Court were terminated in favor of the accused, and accordingly entitled to sealing … . From 2007 through 2015 an average of 23% of all criminal summonses were dismissed for facial insufficiency … . Unless otherwise permitted by law, no one, including a private or public agency, can access a sealed record, except with a court order upon a showing that justice so requires.

The presence of arrest and summons data in the database also undercut the presumption of innocence insofar as persons were threatened with punishment on account of allegations that may have been unsubstantiated or dismissed.

…[T]his is not the first NYPD database to have included unlawfully broad data. NYPD previously recorded the name of every individual stopped and frisked as recently as 2010, until forced by a federal lawsuit to discontinue the practice.

Finally, there is little doubt that the “transit recidivist” database had a disproportionately negative effect on black and Hispanic communities, perpetuating this City’s history of overpolicing communities of color. Vargas v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00370, First Dept 1-22-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE TAX AND WAGE DOCUMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FACTUAL BASES FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED DEFENDANTS’ BLANKET ASSERTIONS OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE IN THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM AN ACTION TO RECOVER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the defendant’s blanket assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his wife’s assertion of her Fifth Amendment and her spousal privileges did not justify the denial of plaintiff’s motion to hold defendant in contempt or the denial of a motion to compel defendant’s wife to submit to a deposition and produce documents. Plaintiff sought payment of a multi-million dollar deficiency judgment. The Third Department explained that tax returns, W-2 forms and 1099 forms fall withing the “required records exception” to the privilege against self-incrimination. The Third Department further found that defendant and his wife must provide a factual basis for their refusal to answer each of the 358 questions posed by plaintiff because there had been no showing that criminal proceedings against the defendant were imminent or that the spousal privilege was applicable:

… [D]efendant’s income tax returns, W-2 wage statements and 1099 forms — fall within the “required records exception” to the privilege against self-incrimination. Under this exception, “[t]he Fifth Amendment privilege which exists as to private papers cannot be asserted with respect to records which are required, by law, to be kept and which are subject to governmental regulation and inspection” … . “To constitute ‘required records,’ the documents must satisfy a three-part test: (1) the requirement that they be kept must be essentially regulatory, (2) the records must be of a kind which the regulated party has customarily kept, and (3) the records themselves must have assumed ‘public aspects’ which render them analogous to public documents” … . …

… [I]t is not evident that every answer to the 358 questions propounded during the May 2015 deposition, and every disclosure of the remaining documents requested in the subpoena, would subject defendant to a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination. The questions put to defendant were those customarily asked at a judgment debtor examination, and there is no indication that the purpose of the deposition was “anything other than an ordinary search of [defendant’s] assets in order to satisfy the judgment against him” … . … [T]here is nothing in this record indicating, nor does defendant assert, that he is the subject of any criminal investigation or proceeding. More to the point, defendant has not shown that his claimed fear of prosecution is anything other than “imaginary” … .

… [W]e conclude that Supreme Court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Chava Nelkenbaum [defendant’s wife] must be reversed and the matter remitted for an in camera inquiry to test the validity of her invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege as to each of the questions asked and each of the documents demanded of her. To the extent that Chava Nelkenbaum invoked the spousal privilege as a basis for refusing to answer certain questions propounded at the deposition or to produce documents responsive to the subpoena, we note that the privilege “attaches only to those statements made in confidence and ‘that are induced by the marital relation and prompted by the affection, confidence and loyalty engendered by such relationship'” … . Further, this privilege does not attach to “ordinary conversations relating to matters of business” … . Carver Fed. Sav. Bank v Shaker Gardens, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08975, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

, ,

DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the action stemming from plaintiff church’s defrocking and ejecting defendant nun from a convent was not justiciable in the New York courts because inquiry into religious doctrine or practice was required. Defendant nun had complained about sexual harassment by a priest and alleged she was retaliated against by the plaintiff church:

“The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs” … . A court may, however, properly preside over a dispute involving a religious body only when the dispute may be resolved utilizing neutral principles of law … .

Here, the summary proceedings for eviction and the action, inter alia, for ejectment are inextricably intertwined with the determinations of the ecclesiastical court, particularly its 2008 determination defrocking the defendant and ordering her to vacate the convent. Therefore, this consolidated action involves review of an ecclesiastical determination that may not be resolved by resort to neutral principles of law … . Moreover, this matter does not involve a purely religious determination requiring this Court to accept the actions of the ecclesiastical court as final and binding … . Russian Orthodox Convent Novo-Diveevo, Inc. v Sukharevskaya, 2018 NY Slip Op 08167, Second Dept 11-28-18

RELIGION (DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (RELIGION, DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELIGION, (DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))/FIRST AMENDMENT (RELIGION, DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE NUN WHO WAS DEFROCKED AND EJECTED FROM THE CONVENT IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, over a detailed and comprehensive dissent (worth reading), affirmed defendant’s attempted murder conviction. The dissent made it clear there was a strong right to counsel issue that, because it involved facts that are not on the record, must be brought in a motion to vacate the conviction. The dissent also argued defendant was deprived of a fair trial because he appeared in the same prison-issue clothes for eight days:

From the Dissent:

Since the Supreme Court was informed at the time of arraignment in Queens County that the defendant had established an attorney-client relationship with Eaddy in both the Kings County and Queens County cases, it was incumbent upon the court to assign her as counsel unless she was not ready, willing, or able to accept the assignment… . At the time of arraignment, there was no risk that Eaddy’s participation would have delayed or disrupted the proceedings, created any conflict of interest, or resulted in prejudice to the prosecution or the defense. To the contrary, Eaddy’s familiarity with the defendant and the case, as well as the defendant’s preference for her as his assigned counsel, would most likely have expedited matters. Indeed, the attorney who was assigned to represent the defendant at the arraignment, Siff, was eventually discharged in March 2011 and replaced with Coppin, with whom the defendant expressed dissatisfaction and requested further substitution.

Instead of inquiring as to Eaddy’s availability at the time of arraignment, the Supreme Court summarily denied the defendant’s request for the constitutionally impermissible reason that the defendant was too indigent to pay for her services  … . * * *

Here, there is no question that the clothing worn by the defendant was prison-issued clothing. The defendant wore the same green top and bottom for three days of jury selection and more than five days of trial testimony. Even the Supreme Court described the defendant’s clothing as “that thing.” Based upon the description of the clothes and the fact that the defendant wore the same clothes for at least eight days, a reasonable juror could only conclude that the clothing was prison garb. Given the defendant’s objection to wearing dirty prison clothes, I conclude that he preserved his contention for appellate review, and that, as a matter of law, he was deprived of a fair trial … . People v Ellis, 2018 NY Slip Op 08143, Second Dept 11-28-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIALS, PRISON CLOTHES, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))/CLOTHES (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIALS, CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over two separate dissenting opinions, determined that the potential penalty of deportation entitles a defendant to a jury trial, even if, as here, the charges are B misdemeanors which are triable without a jury pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 340.40:

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that a defendant will be judged by a jury of peers if charged with a serious crime. Today, as a matter of first impression, we hold that a noncitizen defendant who demonstrates that a charged crime carries the potential penalty of deportation—i.e. removal from the country—is entitled to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment. * * *

Defendant argues that, although the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial did not automatically attach to the crimes with which he was charged because they are punishable by less than a six-month term of incarceration, he met his burden of establishing that the crimes carry an additional penalty beyond incarceration—namely, deportation—which he contends is a sufficiently severe penalty to rebut the presumption that the crimes are petty for Sixth Amendment purposes. We agree. People v Suazo, 2018 NY Slip Op 08056, CtApp 11-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY TRIALS, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP))/JURY TRIALS (CRIMINAL LAW,  EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY TRIALS, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY TRIALS, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP))

, ,

THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the denial of defendant’s request to present an alibi witness was reversible error, despite the fact that a notice of alibi had not been served. The People had opened the door at trial, creating the need to call the alibi witness:

Pursuant to CPL 250.20 (3), “[i]f at the trial the defendant calls such an alibi witness without having served the demanded notice of alibi, . . . the court may exclude any testimony of such witness relating to the alibi defense.” Precluding a criminal defendant from proffering evidence in support of his or her own case implicates the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment… , and, although CPL 250.20 (3) explicitly states that the trial court’s decision to permit a late notice of alibi is discretionary, preclusion is only an appropriate penalty “in the most egregious circumstances”… . When a defendant’s “omission was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence, it would be entirely consistent with the purposes of the Compulsory Process Clause simply to exclude the witness'[s] testimony”… .

… [A]lthough defendant did not serve an alibi notice in response to the People’s demand for same, defendant did not intend to call an alibi witness except that the People — knowing that defendant had testified to having an alibi during the grand jury but that he had not presented that defense at trial — directly elicited testimony … about what defendant was doing on the night of the shooting. In response to follow-up questions by the People, [the witness] provided the alibi witness’s first name and generally discussed that defendant was friends with this person. The People’s question regarding what defendant was doing the night of the shooting was the first reference to defendant’s alibi during the trial, and defendant thereafter sought permission to call his friend … as a witness for the first time. The People, despite raising and pursuing this line of questioning, objected because defendant had not served an alibi notice. Defendant argued that the People opened the door and created the issue and, as a result, defendant should not be precluded from calling Steward. We agree. People v Perkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 07972, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALIBI WITNESS, (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE, THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALIBI WITNESS, THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/ALIBI WITNESS (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

PETITIONER’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF A FAILURE TO COOPERATION WITH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND SOME EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, determined the Nassau County Department of Social Services’ notice to petitioner of the termination of her public assistance benefits was defective and violated her right to due process. The notice did not include any specific instance of a refusal to cooperate with the employment training program, and the subsequent hearing considered evidence not mentioned in the notice:

A local agency may not discontinue a recipient’s public assistance benefits unless the recipient’s failure to comply with one of the department’s work rules is found to be willful and without good cause” (,,,see Social Services Law § 341[1]). A social services agency is required to provide an individual whose public assistance benefits are being discontinued with written notice that includes “the specific instance or instances of willful refusal or failure to comply without good cause” with employment requirements (Social Services Law § 341[1][b]). “A notice specifying the wrong charge as the basis for a reduction in benefits does not comply with the regulatory standard, nor with the constitutional standards of due process”… .

Here, the petitioner correctly contends that the agency’s notice was defective because it did not include any specific instances of her willful refusal without good cause to cooperate with the employment training program … . Additionally, at the fair hearing, the agency offered evidence that the petitioner submitted a falsified timesheet indicating that she continued to attend training after her participation in the program was terminated, a charge not included in the notice. Accordingly, because the notice lacked specificity and failed to adequately advise the petitioner of the issues which were the subject of the hearing, the notice violated the petitioner’s right to due process of law … . Matter of Pearl v Imhof, 2018 NY Slip Op 08024, Second Dept 11-21-18

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (PETITIONER’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF A FAILURE TO COOPERATION WITH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND SOME EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, PETITIONER’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF A FAILURE TO COOPERATION WITH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND SOME EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW  (SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, PETITIONER’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF A FAILURE TO COOPERATION WITH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND SOME EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS, NOTICE, HEARING, PETITIONER’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF A FAILURE TO COOPERATION WITH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND SOME EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the criteria for prior restraint of speech were not met in this action to impose a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order prohibiting the publishing of accusations against plaintiff and offensive images on defendants’ website:

Plaintiff, a law professor, sat on the appellate panel of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) that affirmed the lifetime ban imposed on two stockbrokers, nonparties Talman Harris and William Scholander. Defendants allegedly control a website known as TheBlot, a tabloid-style platform that has published a substantial quantity of material attacking FINRA’s ban of Harris and Scholander and the FINRA personnel, including plaintiff, who were involved in adjudicating that case. The attacks on plaintiff have included — in addition to name-calling, ridicule and various scurrilous accusations — juxtapositions of plaintiff’s likeness to graphic images of the lynching of African Americans, and statements that the banning of Harris, who is African American, constituted a “lynching.”

In this action, plaintiff, who is also African American, seeks, as here relevant, an injunction against the posting on TheBlot of material attacking or libeling him. In this regard, he argues that the lynching images posted alongside photographs of him on TheBlot should be understood as a threat of violence against himself. …

… [T]he preliminary injunction can be affirmed only if it enjoins a “true threat” against plaintiff … . We find, however, that the speech at issue, as offensive as it is, cannot reasonably be construed as truly threatening or inciting violence against plaintiff. Rather, the lynching imagery at issue was plainly intended to draw a grotesque analogy between lynching and FINRA’s banning of Harris, who is an African American (and is identified as such in the posts) … . While this analogy is incendiary and highly inappropriate, plaintiff has not established that any reasonable viewer would have understood the posts as threatening or calling for violence against him. Moreover, even if the posts could reasonably be construed as advocating unlawful conduct, plaintiff has not established that any “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” … . Brummer v Wey, 2018 NY Slip Op 07843, First Dept 11-15-18

DEFAMATION (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAMATION, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FREE SPEECH, PRIOR RESTRAINT, MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/FREE SPEECH (PRIOR RESTRAINT, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PRIOR RESTRAINT (FREE SPEECH, (MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON DEFENDANTS’ WEBSITE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THREATENING SPEECH THAT WOULD ALLOW PRIOR RESTRAINT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, determined that CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503, which require an out-of-state litigant to post a minimum of $500 security for costs in case the nonresident loses, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause:

When plaintiff commenced this personal injury action, she was a New York resident. Plaintiff then relocated to Georgia, prompting defendants to move, pursuant to CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503, for an order compelling plaintiff—a nonresident at the time the motion was made—to post a minimum of $500 security for costs in the event she lost the case (see CPLR 8101). Defendants also requested a stay of the proceedings pursuant to CPLR 8502 until plaintiff complied with the order. In opposition, plaintiff argued that CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503 were unconstitutional because they violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Federal Constitution by impairing nonresident plaintiffs’ fundamental right of access to the courts.

Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion, opining that although access to the courts is a fundamental right protectable under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503 do not bar access to the courts … . Supreme Court further stated that security for costs provisions are common nationwide … .

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. The court held that CPLR article 85 satisfied the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Canadian Northern R.R. Co. v Eggen (252 US 553 [1920]), and re-affirmed in McBurney v Young (569 US 221 [2013]), that nonresidents must be given “access to the courts of the state upon terms which in themselves are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any rights [they] may have” … . On that basis, the Appellate Division held that “the challenged statutory provisions do not deprive noncitizens of New York of reasonable and adequate access to New York courts” … . … [[W]e … affirm. Clement v Durban, 2018 NY Slip Op 07693, CtApp 11-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/CPLR 8501, 8503 (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/COSTS  (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))

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