You are here: / Constitutional Law
, ,

Patient Held In a Mental Health Facility After the Court Order Authorizing Confinement Had Expired Was Entitled to Habeas Corpus Relief Pursuant to CPLR Article 70

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, reversing the appellate division, determined that a patient, who was held in a mental health facility pursuant to a court order which the facility neglected to extend, was entitled to release pursuant to a CPLR article 70 habeas corpus proceeding. The hospital unsuccessfully argued that the only habeas-corpus relief available to the patient was pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 33.15 which required an inquiry into the patient’s mental state:

CPLR 7001 provides that article 70 applies to common-law and statutory writs of habeas corpus “[e]xcept as otherwise prescribed by statute” (CPLR 7001). However, nothing in the plain language of Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15 purports to limit the availability of the common-law writ in Mental Hygiene Law proceedings. Rather, section 33.15 enhances the efficacy of the writ of habeas corpus, as our case law dictates, and thereby ensures that patients are not committed and retained without due process of law. That is, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15 allows patients to seek a writ of habeas corpus when they are being held pursuant to a court order but, nevertheless, believe they have sufficiently recovered from their mental illness so that their continued retention is unwarranted; in such cases, determining the legality of their retention would require an inquiry into their mental state. On the other hand, patients whose detention is otherwise unauthorized may proceed under the habeas corpus provisions of CPLR article 70 since the legality of their detention can be determined on the basis of, for example, whether the appropriate procedures have been followed, without the need for a hearing into their mental state.  People ex rel. DeLia v Munsey, 2015 NY Slip Op 07697, CtApp 10-22-15

 

SAFE Act Restrictions on Ownership of Assault Rifles and Ammunition Feeding Devices Constitutional

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined that the restrictions on ownership of assault rifles and ammunition feeding devices in the “SAFE Act” furthered the substantial, compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention and, therefore, are constitutional:

We will accept, for purposes of discussion, that the SAFE Act substantially burdens the right to keep and bear arms so as to subject it to Second Amendment scrutiny … . We will also assume, although it is debatable, that the weapons and feeding devices addressed by the SAFE Act are not the type of dangerous and exotic weaponry that merit no Second Amendment protection … . The question accordingly becomes whether the challenged provisions survive intermediate scrutiny, namely, whether they “bear[] a substantial relationship to the achievement of an important governmental objective” … .

With regard to the objective pursued, “New York has substantial, indeed compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention” … . [Plaintiffs] provided no proof to call the well-established premise behind the challenged provisions into question, namely, that the governmental interest in public safety is substantially furthered by reducing access to weapons designed to quickly fire significant amounts of ammunition and the ammunition feeding devices required to hold that ammunition … . Thus, we agree with Supreme Court that “[t]he core prohibitions . . . of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines [contained in the SAFE Act] do not violate the Second Amendment”… . Schulz v State of New York Exec., Andrew Cuomo, Governor, 2015 NY Slip Op 07728, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, , ,

Wilfulness Is Not an Element of Civil Contempt/Supreme Court Properly Drew a Negative Inference from Defendant’s Invocation of His Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination

In an extensive opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of civil contempt re: an order in a matrimonial matter. The Court of Appeals determined Supreme Court properly drew a negative inference from defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that “wilfulness” is an element of civil contempt:

… [N]owhere in Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3] is wilfulness explicitly set forth as an element of civil contempt (Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]…). Indeed the only mention of wilfulness for civil contempt is in § 753 [A] [1], which is not at issue in this case as it applies only to “[a]n attorney, counsellor, clerk, sheriff, coroner,” or someone otherwise selected or appointed for judicial or ministerial service. In contrast, Judiciary Law § 750, the criminal contempt provision, permits a court to impose punishment for criminal contempt only for “wilful disobedience to its lawful mandate” (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]…). This statutory language makes clear that where the legislature intended to require wilfulness, it knew how to do so, and any omission of such element is intentional … . …

Apart from the statute, this Court has not imposed a wilfulness requirement for civil contempt… . El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 2015 NY Slip Op 07579, CtApp 10-20-15

 

, , , ,

Petition Sufficiently Alleged the Town’s Restrictive Covenant Was Invalid (1) Because It Sought to Regulate the Owner of Land Rather than the Use of the Land, (2) Because It No Longer Could Accomplish Its Purpose, and (3) Because It Effected an Unconstitutional Taking of Petitioner’s Land

The Second Department determined petitioner had stated causes of action contesting the validity and enforceability of a restrictive covenant promulgated by the town requiring that condominiums built by petitioner be sold rather than leased. Petitioner had sufficiently alleged (1) the restrictive covenant was invalid because it regulated the person who owned the land (petitioner) rather than the use of the land, (2) the restrictive covenant was not enforceable because its purpose could not be accomplished, and (3) the restrictive covenant amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The court explained the applicable legal principles:

The power to zone “is not a general police power, but a power to regulate land use” … . “It is a fundamental rule that zoning deals basically with land use and not with the person who owns or occupies it'” … . Furthermore, ” a zoning ordinance will be struck down if it bears no substantial relation to the police power objective of promoting the public health, safety, morals or general welfare'” … .

“[R]estrictive covenants will be enforced when the intention of the parties is clear and the limitation is reasonable and not offensive to public policy” … . However, even the ” [p]urchase of property with knowledge of [a] restriction does not bar the purchaser from testing the validity of the zoning ordinance [because] the zoning ordinance in the very nature of things has reference to land rather than to owner'” … .

…[Petitioner] sufficiently alleged that the restrictive covenant is improper because it regulates [petiioner’s] ability as the owner of the property to rent the units rather than the use of the land itself. [Petitioner] has further alleged that, particularly in light of the provision permitting future owners to lease units in the development, the restrictive covenant “bears no substantial relation to . . . the public health, safety, morals or general welfare”… .

“Pursuant to RPAPL 1951(1), a restrictive covenant shall not be enforced if, at the time enforceability of the restriction is brought into question, it appears that the restriction is of no actual and substantial benefit to the persons seeking its enforcement or seeking a declaration or determination of its enforceability, either because the purpose of the restriction has already been accomplished or, by reason of changed conditions or other cause, its purpose is not capable of accomplishment, or for any other reason'” . Here, assuming that there is a benefit to be obtained by requiring the units to be sold rather than rented, [petitioner] has alleged that, because the rental restriction imposed by the restrictive covenant applies only to it and not to any subsequent owner of any of the units in the planned development, it is of no substantial benefit to the Town or its citizens. In support of its motion to dismiss, the Town has offered no explanation as to why this is not so. … * * *

With respect to the third cause of action, which alleged an unconstitutional taking based upon “denial of development, as opposed to excessive exactions” …, the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Agins v City of Tiburon (447 US 255) applies … . Pursuant to this test, “a zoning law effects a regulatory taking if either: (1) the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests’ or (2) the ordinance denies an owner economically viable use of his land'” … . However, “[a] reasonable land use restriction imposed by the government in the exercise of its police power characteristically diminishes the value of private property, but is not rendered unconstitutional merely because it causes the property’s value to be substantially reduced, or because it deprives the property of its most beneficial use” … . Thus, a court must examine “(1) [t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations’; and (3) the character of the governmental action'”… . Blue Is. Dev., LLC v Town of Hempstead, 2015 NY Slip Op 06488, 2nd Dept 8-12-15

 

, , , ,

Waiver of a Jury Trial in an Article 10 Sex-Offender Civil Commitment Proceeding Requires an On-the-Record Colloquy After Consultation with Counsel

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, in a matter of first impression, determined that the state and federal constitutions mandated an on-the-record waiver of the right to a jury trail in an Article 10 sex-offender civil commitment proceeding. Here, the respondent sent a letter to the judge explaining his reasons for wanting a non-jury trial. The letter was deemed insufficient to establish a knowing waiver.

… [A]respondent’s statutory right to a jury trial in an article 10 proceeding is protected by Article I, § 2 of the New York State Constitution, which provides that “[t]rial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitution shall remain inviolate forever.” * * *

In view of the fact that article 10 proceedings are civil in nature, “the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments … govern the scope of procedural due process” … . Accordingly, a respondent’s waiver of the right to a jury must comport with the procedural due process requirements under both the United States and New York Constitutions. * * *

With these general principles in mind, we hold that in order to accomplish a valid waiver of the right to a jury trial in an article 10 proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07(b), and in accordance with due process, there must be an on-the-record colloquy, in order to ensure that the respondent understands the nature of the right, and that the respondent’s decision is knowing and voluntary after having had sufficient opportunity to consult with counsel … . * * *

We note, however, that a written waiver such as is mandated by CPL 320.10 in criminal proceedings is not required in order to satisfy the requirements of Mental Hygiene Law article 10 or due process … . Matter of State of New York v Ted B., 2015 NY Slip Op 06352, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

A Defendant’s Status as an Undocumented Alien Cannot Be the Sole Ground for Imposing Incarceration As Opposed to Probation

In a case of first impression, the Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that a defendant’s status as an undocumented alien cannot constitute the sole reason for a sentence of incarceration as opposed to probation. County Court reasoned that as soon as a sentence of probation was imposed upon an undocumented alien, the defendant would be in violation of probation by virtue of his/her undocumented status. Therefore, County Court concluded, a sentence of probation was not available to any undocumented alien. The Second Department disagreed, holding that a defendant’s status as an undocumented alien can be considered in determining the appropriate sentence, but it cannot be the sole ground for imposing a sentence of incarceration. To pre-determine that an undocumented alien is not eligible for probation violates due process and equal protection, constitutional rights which are afforded undocumented aliens:

… [W]e reach two conclusions. First, courts may appropriately consider a defendant’s undocumented immigration status in imposing criminal sentences. The decision to impose or not impose a sentence of probation may legitimately be affected by factors directly related to undocumented status. Those factors include, but are not necessarily limited to, the likelihood of the defendant’s deportation during the probationary period, the defendant’s history, if any, of repeated departures from and illegal reentries into the United States, the presence or absence of family in the United States, the defendant’s employment history, and the defendant’s legal employability. Second, it is impermissible for a sentencing court to refuse to consider a sentence of probation for an undocumented defendant solely on the basis of his or her immigration status. Doing so violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Federal and New York constitutions by treating certain defendants differently from others based upon their undocumented presence in this state. In other words, a defendant’s undocumented immigration status may be a factor a court takes into account in determining whether to include probation as part of a sentence, but such status cannot be the sole factor a court relies upon in denying a probationary sentence and in imposing a term of imprisonment instead. People v Cesar, 2015 NY Slip Op 06252, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

,

New York City Was Unable to Demonstrate Amendments to the Adult Use Zoning Regulations Were Necessary to Reduce the Negative Effects of Such Businesses on the Surrounding Areas–Therefore the Amendments Constituted an Unjustified Restriction on Speech

In a lengthy, full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, the First Department upheld Supreme Court’s determination that the 2001 amendments to New York City’s adult use zoning regulations, re: adult eating and drinking establishments and adult video and book stores, constituted a violation of the First Amendment precluding enforcement of the amendments. In an attempt to change the character of the adult businesses the city had enacted a “60-40” rule requiring that 60% of each business be devoted to “non-adult” products and/or activities. The City later amended the regulations, removing the “60-40” rule, and re-writing the criteria so that a business could be deemed to focus on sexually explicit entertainment irrespective of the amount of space or inventory devoted to “adult” activities and materials. It was those amendments which were challenged. The controversy boiled down to a factual one: Is the City able to demonstrate that the adult-businesses’ response to the “60-40” rule was a “sham response” such that the character of the businesses, and the consequent negative effects on the surrounding community, had not been altered? If the City could so demonstrate, the recent amendments would constitute a justified restriction of speech, if not, the amendments result in an unjustified restriction of speech. The First Department determined the City failed to demonstrate the response to the “60-40” rule was a “sham response” and that the businesses remained unaltered in character by the rule. For The People Theaters of N.Y. Inc. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06200, 1st Dept 7-21-15

 

, ,

Non-Resident Shareholders In an S Corporation Who Sold their Stock and Treated the Transaction as a “Deemed Asset Sale” Were Properly Assessed New York Income Tax on the New York-Source Aspects of the Sale

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined non-resident plaintiffs, shareholders in an S corporation who sold their stock and treated the transaction as a “deemed asset sale,” were properly assessed New York income taxes on the New York-source aspects of the sale pursuant to Tax Law 632. The court rejected the argument that the tax assessment violated Article 16 section 3 of the New York Constitution:

Based on the results of [an] audit, defendant New York State Department of Taxation and Finance assessed $167,000 in state income taxes on plaintiffs’ … transaction gains, relying on Tax Law § 632 (a) (2), which was amended in 2010 to provide, in relevant part, that “any gain recognized on [a] deemed asset sale for federal income tax purposes will be treated as New York source income.” Plaintiffs paid the taxes and thereafter demanded refunds, claiming that their corporate-derived income was obtained from the sale of … stock, which is considered intangible personal property and nontaxable.

After defendant rejected the refund demands, plaintiffs filed the instant declaratory judgment action against defendant and the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, challenging the tax as unconstitutional … . * * *

…. [T]here is no question that New York State’s Tax Law, including Tax Law § 632 (a) (2), as amended in 2010, contemplates the taxes that defendants assessed on the New York-source portion of plaintiffs’ deemed asset sale gains. * * *

Nothing changes the fact that plaintiffs sold something of value and reaped the benefits from that sale. Article 16, § 3 in no way supports plaintiffs’ attempts to avoid paying state taxes on those gains. Burton v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2015 NY Slip Op 05624, CtApp 7-1-15

 

, ,

Retroactive Application of Tax Law 632 Amendments, Which Clarified that Installment Payments Re: a Deemed Asset Sale Will Be Treated as New York-Source Income, Did Not Violate Plaintiffs’ Due Process Rights

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, in an action raising many of the same income-tax-law issues raised in Burton v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2015 NY Slip Op 05624, CtApp 7-1-15 (summarized directly above), determined plaintiffs’ due process rights were not violated by the retroactive application of Tax Law 632. The case concerned the taxation of installment payments re: a deemed asset sale of stock in an S corporation. The 2010 amendments of Tax Law 632 clarified that the installments will be treated as New York-source income and made the amendments retroactive for 3 1/2 years. The Court of Appeals determined: (1) plaintiffs’ interpretation of the prior law was not reasonable and therefore plaintiffs did not establish reliance on the prior law; (2) the length of the retroactive period was not excessive; and (3),  the amendment (correcting an error and preventing revenue loss) served a valid public purpose. The court explained the nature of the amendments and the analytical criteria for determining the validity of retroactive application:

Prior to its amendment, Tax Law § 632 mandated only that, as relevant here:

“In determining New York source income of a nonresident shareholder of an S corporation . . . there shall be included only the portion derived from or connected with New York sources of such shareholder’s pro rata share of items of S corporation income, loss and deduction entering into his federal adjusted gross income . . .”

The 2010 amendments clarified, among other things, that if the S corporation distributed an installment obligation under 26 USC § 453 (h) (1) (A) or made a deemed asset sale election under 26 USC § 338 (h) (10), “any gain recognized on the receipt of payments from the installment obligation . . . [or] on the deemed asset sale for federal income tax purposes will be treated as New York source income” (L 2010, ch 57, Part C § 2). The amendments were made retroactive to all taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2007 — which represent those years for which the statute of limitations for seeking a refund or assessing additional tax was still open (L 2010, ch 57, Part C, § 4, amended L 2010, ch 312, Part B, § 1) — thus, effectively creating a 3½ year period of retroactivity. * * *

While “retroactive legislation does have to meet a burden not faced by legislation that has only future effects[,] . . . that burden is met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose” … . In analyzing whether a statute is harsh and oppressive — and, thus, arbitrary and irrational — this Court uses a balancing-of-equities test … :

“The important factors in determining whether a retroactive tax transgresses the constitutional limitation are (1) ‘the taxpayer’s forewarning of a change in the legislation and the reasonableness of . . . reliance on the old law,’ (2) ‘the length of the retroactive period,’ and (3) ‘the public purpose for retroactive application'” … . Caprio v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2015 NY Slip Op 05625, CtApp 7-1-15

 

, , ,

Town Board’s Terminating, Without Notice, Plaintiff’s Construction Project Violated Plaintiff’s Right to Substantive Due Process/Town Was Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity

The plaintiff had cleared the way for building on land which included wetlands by obtaining the necessary permits and waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) when, without notice, the town board passed a resolution rescinding a previously issued sewer tap-in waiver and terminating the construction project. Among other theories, plaintiff sued under 42 USC 1983 (deprivation of property without due process of law) and won. On appeal the due process violation verdict was upheld. The Fourth Department explained the criteria for the due process cause of action and noted that the defendant town was not entitled to qualified immunity because the town board’s actions violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights:

… [W]e note that the Court of Appeals has set forth a two-part test for substantive due process violations: “[f]irst, [a plaintiff] must establish a cognizable property interest, meaning a vested property interest, or more than a mere expectation or hope to retain the permit and continue their improvements; they must show that pursuant to State or local law, they had a legitimate claim of entitlement to continue construction’ . . . Second, [a plaintiff] must show that the governmental action was wholly without legal justification” … . Under the first prong, “a legitimate claim of entitlement to a permit can exist only where there is either a certainty or a very strong likelihood’ that an application for approval would have been granted” … . “Where an issuing authority has discretion in approving or denying a permit, a clear entitlement can exist only when that discretion is so narrowly circumscribed that approval of a proper application is virtually assured’ “… . * * *

We reject defendant’s contention that the state constitutional claims should be dismissed because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. ” A government official is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’ ” … . Defendant failed to establish that it was objectively reasonable for the Town Board to believe that its conduct in withdrawing the sewer tap-in waiver request on … was appropriate … . Instead, the evidence established that the Town Board members acted without knowing the history of the project and acted knowing that only the Planning Board had to take action, i.e., to give site plan approval for the property. Despite the existence of plaintiff’s constitutionally protected property interest in the … tap-in waiver request, the Town Board acted … to withdraw that waiver request, which was a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As such, defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Acquest Wehrle, LLC v Town of Amherst, 2015 NY Slip Op 05346, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

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