You are here: / Constitutional Law
,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PROHIBITS CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM RESIDING OR TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, DOES NOT IMPOSE PUNISHMENT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE.

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Gische, over a dissenting opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibits certain sex offenders, including appellant, from residing or traveling within 1000 feet of school grounds, did not violate the federal or state constitutions. Appellant claimed there was no place he could reside in Manhattan, and no way to travel to the places he was required to visit in Manhattan, without violating the statute. SARA was enacted after appellant’s conviction. Appellant argued the statute violated the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws. The court applied the intent-effects analysis. If the intent of the legislation was to impose punishment, the statute would violate the EX Post Facto prohibition and the court’s inquiry would end. But if the intent was to establish civil proceedings, the court must go on to determine whether the effect of the statute is so punitive as to negate its civil nature. After an extensive analysis, the First Department held the statute was not intended to impose punishment, and the additional restrictions the statute imposed upon appellant, who was already otherwise restricted as a parolee, did not rise to the level of punishment:

 

… [W]hile some factors favor petitioner, overall we do not find the clear proof that is necessary to support a determination that SARA is punitive in its effect. The legislature was not “masking punitive provisions behind the veneer of a civil statute” … . Consequently, we conclude that SARA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Matter of Williams v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2016 NY Slip Op 00135, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT [SARA] (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (1000-FOOT SCHOOL-GROUNDS NO-GO ZONE IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT IS NOT PUNITIVE IN EFFECT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)

,

Defendant Implicitly Consented to a Mistrial on Two of Three Counts by Requesting a Partial Verdict

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the defendant, by requesting a partial verdict on the count on which the jury had reached a verdict, had consented to a mistrial on the two remaining counts and, therefore, had waived double jeopardy protection for those two counts:

After one juror was found unable to serve, defendant refused to substitute an alternate juror and requested a partial verdict on the one count on which the jury had indicated it had reached a verdict. The Appellate Division granted the [defendant’s] petition [prohibiting retrial] on the basis that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial and did not address the issue of consent. Because defendant implicitly consented to a mistrial on two of three counts by requesting a partial verdict and by saying nothing about the court’s plans for retrial … , we need not reach the issue of manifest necessity. Matter of Gentil v Margulis, 2015 NY Slip Op 08455, CtApp 11-19-15

 

, ,

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

 

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