You are here: / Constitutional Law
, ,

EDUCATION LAW STATUTE REQUIRING A 60% MAJORITY TO AUTHORIZE A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE OVER THE STATUTORY CAP (TO FUND SCHOOL DISTRICTS) IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, over a partial dissent, determined the Education Law statute which requires a 60% majority vote to increase property taxes beyond the statutory cap (to fund local school districts) is constitutional.  The Election Article of the New York Constitution, the due process clause, the right to equal protection under the law, and the fundamental right to vote were deemed not to have been violated by the statute. With regard to the equal protection argument, the court wrote:

Defendants suggest, and plaintiffs do not dispute, that Education Law § 2023-a ,,, [was] designed with the legitimate goal in mind of restraining onerous property tax increases that were believed to be depressing economic activity in the State … . Plaintiffs suggest that it is irrational to achieve this legitimate aim in a manner that impairs local control of schools and deters poorer school districts that would otherwise seek a property tax increase over the tax cap to keep pace with educational needs. It suffices to say that, while Education Law § 2023-a … incentivize[s] districts and their residents to avoid property tax increases over the tax cap, neither prevents such increases if sufficient community support exists for them (see Education Law § 2023-a [6]). The differences in the services offered by various school districts accordingly result from a permissible consequence of local control over schools, namely, the variable “willingness of the taxpayers of [different] districts to pay for and to provide enriched educational services and facilities beyond what the basic per pupil expenditure figures will permit” … . Inasmuch as there is nothing irrational in this, plaintiffs' equal protection claims fail … . New York State United Teachers v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03572, 3rd Dept 5-5-16

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (EDUCATION LAW STATUTE REQUIRING A 60% MAJORITY TO AUTHORIZE A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE OVER THE STATUTORY CAP (TO FUND SCHOOL DISTRICTS) IS CONSTITUTIONAL)/TAX LAW (EDUCATION LAW STATUTE REQUIRING A 60% MAJORITY TO AUTHORIZE A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE OVER THE STATUTORY CAP (TO FUND SCHOOL DISTRICTS) IS CONSTITUTIONAL)/CONSITUTIONAL LAW  (EDUCATION LAW STATUTE REQUIRING A 60% MAJORITY TO AUTHORIZE A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE OVER THE STATUTORY CAP (TO FUND SCHOOL DISTRICTS) IS CONSTITUTIONAL)

,

SNOW-REMOVAL COMPANY NOT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACT; NO NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO ADDRESS ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF THE EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT PLED BY THE PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined defendant snow-removal company, Brickman, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this slip and fall case. Because the plaintiff was not a party to the snow-removal contract with the owner of the property, Brickman owed no duty to plaintiff. The court noted that, because the plaintiff did not allege the applicability of any of the “Espinal” exceptions to the general rule against tort liability arising from a contract, the defendant was not obligated to address those exceptions in its summary judgment motion:

 

A contractual obligation, standing alone, generally will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138). However, there are three exceptions to that general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties, and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

Brickman made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it by submitting evidence that the plaintiff was not a party to its snow removal agreement, and that it thus owed her no duty of care … . Inasmuch as the plaintiff did not allege facts in the complaint or bill of particulars that would establish the possible applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions … , Brickman was not required to affirmatively demonstrate that these exceptions did not apply in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

Once Brickman made its prima facie showing, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of one or more of the Espinal exceptions … . In opposition to Brickman’s prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Brickman launched a force or instrument of harm, whether she detrimentally relied on the continued performance of Brickman’s duties, or whether Brickman entirely displaced the owner’s duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition … . Bryan v CLK-HP 225 Rabro, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01280, 2nd Dept 2-24-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO TORT LIABILTIY AROSE FROM SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF NOT A PARTY)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DEFENDANT NEED NOT ADDRESS ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AGAINST TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF NOT ALLEGED BY THE PLAINTIFF)/CONTRACT LAW (DEFENDANT NEED NOT ADDRESS ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AGAINST TORY LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF NOT ALLEGED BY THE PLAINTIFF)/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS (DEFENDANT NEED NOT ADDRESS ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AGAINST TORY LIABILITY ARISING FROM CONTRACT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF NOT ALLEGED BY THE PLAINTIFF)

,

PETITIONERS, WHO HELD CATERED EVENTS, INCLUDING WEDDINGS, AT THEIR FARM, COMMITTED AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE WHEN THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS’ SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AT THE FARM.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) properly found petitioners (the Giffords) discriminated against respondents (the McCarthys) by refusing to hold the McCarthys’ same-sex marriage at the Giffords’ farm (Liberty Ridge). The Giffords held catered events on their farm, including weddings. The Third Department held the farm was “a place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the Human Rights Law (Executive law 290 [3]) and was therefore subject to the statutory prohibition of “unlawful discriminatory practice[s]” in “a place of public accommodation.” The federal and state constitutional arguments raised by the owners of the farm  (free exercise of religion, free speech, compelled speech and expressive association) were discussed in detail and rejected. SDHR’s award of $1500 each to the respondents, and the imposition of a $10,000 civil penalty on the Giffords was upheld. With respect to the definition of “a place of public accommodation,” the court explained:

Executive Law § 292 (9) “defines ‘place of public accommodation, resort or amusement’ inclusively and illustratively, not specifically, and sets forth an extensive list of examples of places within the statute” … . Such term includes “establishments dealing with goods or services of any kind” and “any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises” (Executive Law § 292 [9]). Over the years, the statutory definition has been expanded repeatedly, “provid[ing] a clear indication that the Legislature used the phrase place of public accommodation ‘in the broad sense of providing conveniences and services to the public’ and that it intended that the definition of place of accommodation should be interpreted liberally” … .

Here, Liberty Ridge’s wedding facilities fall comfortably within the broad definition of “place of public accommodation.” It is undisputed that petitioners open Liberty Ridge to the public as a venue for wedding ceremonies and receptions and offer several wedding-related event services in connection therewith. Indeed, the only wedding-related service that Liberty Ridge does not provide is an officiant for the wedding ceremony. The couples who contract to wed at Liberty Ridge’s facilities are members of the general public who, like the McCarthys, may be attracted to the farm by its broadly disseminated advertisements and website. The fact that the wedding ceremonies occur on private property and pursuant to a written contract does not, as petitioners contend, remove Liberty Ridge’s facilities from the reach of the Human Rights Law; the critical factor is that the facilities are made available to the public at large… . Matter of Gifford v McCarthy, 2016 NY Slip Op 00230, 3rd Dept 1-14-16

LABOR LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SUPPORTED BY NON-DEFECTIVE A-FRAME LADDER WHICH FELL OVER WITH PLAINTIFF HOLDING ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY)

,

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

 

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