You are here: / Constitutional Law
, ,

Defendant Cannot Be Convicted of Both Intentional and Depraved Indifference Murder Where there Is a Single Victim/”Transferred Intent” Theory Explained and Applied/Insufficient Evidence Defendant Intimidated a Witness—the Witness’ Grand Jury Testimony Should Not Have Been Admitted

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a partial dissent, resolved a split among the departments and determined a defendant cannot be convicted of both intentional murder and depraved indifference murder where there is a single victim. It was alleged that the defendant fired his weapon at one person, but killed an uninvolved bystander who was several buildings away. The trial judge submitted both the intentional and depraved indifference murder theories to the jury in the conjunctive (not in the alternative). Defendant was convicted of both offenses. The Court of Appeals’ analysis turned on “transferred intent.”  Conviction under New York’s “transferred intent” theory requires the jury to conclude the defendant acted intentionally.  Intentional murder, even where “transferred intent” is involved, is incompatible with depraved indifference murder, which is, by definition, not intentional. Where there is a single victim, only one or the other mental state can apply, not both. The Court of Appeals further determined the trial court erred when it allowed in evidence the grand jury testimony of a witness who refused to testify, purportedly out of fear. There was not sufficient evidence connecting the defendant to any actions or words aimed at instilling fear in the witness.  A new trial was ordered for the intentional, depraved indifference and attempted murder counts:

The purpose of the transferred intent theory is “to ensure that a person will be prosecuted for the crime [that person] intended to commit even when, because of bad aim or some other ‘lucky mistake,’ the intended target was not the actual victim” … . Given this stated goal, the Court has cautioned that transferred intent “should not be employed to ‘multiply criminal liability, but to prevent a defendant who has committed all the elements of a crime (albeit not upon the same victim) from escaping responsibility for that crime” … . Hence, it should be applied where a defendant “could not be convicted of the crime because the mental and physical elements do not concur as to either the intended or actual victim” … .

… Whether based on the defendant’s conscious objective towards the intended victim, or on a transferred intent theory directed at a different, and actual, victim, defendant’s conviction depends on a jury finding that defendant harbored the requisite intentional mental state. Defendant cannot then also be guilty of the same murder premised on a depraved state of mind.

That the People had at their disposal two bases by which to establish the requisite state of mind — transferred intent and depraved indifference — does not permit the People to seek multiple convictions for the one murder for which the defendant was charged, prosecuted and tried. To hold otherwise is contrary to “the basic principle that a defendant should not be convicted and punished more than once for conduct which, although constituting only one prohibited act, may because of statutory definition, be theorized as constituting separate criminal acts” … . Under New York law, defendant is held accountable for the murder he committed, even if it was not the one he set out to complete (Penal Law 125.25 [1]). People v Dubarry, 2015 NY Slip Op 02865, CtApp 4-7-15

 

, , ,

Ex Parte Interview of Important Prosecution Witness Re: the Witness’ Health, Addictions and Ability to Testify Violated Defendants’ Right to Confrontation and Right to Counsel

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined that the court’s conducting an ex parte interview of a main prosecution witness concerning the witness’ health, addictions and his related ability to testify violated the defendants’ right to confrontation and right to counsel:

Absent a substantial justification, courts must not examine witnesses about nonministerial matters in camera without counsel present or ex parte (see … People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, 173 [1974]). “[A]n in-camera examination of the witnesses, that is ex parte or without the parties represented would, in our view, arguably trifle with the constitutional right to confrontation and the right to counsel” (Goggins, 34 NY2d at 169). A “defendant’s right to the full benefit of the adversary system should not be denied, nor qualified by impairing his right by interposing the ‘neutral’ Judge to assess whether the disclosure is relevant or material” (id.). Goggins concerned a defendant’s right to disclosure of an informant’s identity, and this Court held that where the information “relates to a substantive issue in the case, the disclosure should not be ex parte or without either party present even if in camera” (id. at 173). * * *

The denial of the right to counsel at trial “is of constitutional dimension” and is not subject to harmless error analysis … . Courts should not delve into questions of prejudice when assistance of counsel is involved … . As this Court recognized, “[t]he right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial” … . And as this Court held in Hodge, a quantification of what impeachment material defense counsel might have obtained at the proceeding cannot be dispositive …, as harmless error does not apply in right-to-counsel cases … .

Here, the in camera proceeding clearly involved substantive issues as opposed to ministerial matters and there was no justification for excluding defense counsel. Because the discussion involved important issues for trial that might have affected a “substantial right” of a party, defense counsels’ presence was required… . People v Carr, 2015 NY Slip Op 02798, CtApp 4-2-15

 

, , ,

Municipalities (Counties) Are Not “Persons” and Therefore Cannot Challenge a Statute on Due Process Grounds

The Fourth Department determined municipalities are not “persons” and cannot sue under the due process clause of the US or New York Constitutions to declare a statute unconstitutional.  Here the counties sought to have a law prohibiting reimbursement for certain Medicaid expenses (section 61) overturned:

Here, petitioners contend that respondents’ enactment of section 61 impermissibly deprived them of vested rights to repayment under Social Services Law § 368-a, in violation of their rights under the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Similarly, article I, § 6 of the New York State Constitution provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Thus, the constitutional provisions share a common link, i.e., they protect a “person” (id.; see US Const, 14th Amend, § 1).

Contrary to petitioners’ contentions, we conclude that they are not persons within the meaning of the constitutional due process provisions. This principle was stated clearly by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which concluded that “[m]unicipalities cannot challenge state action on federal constitutional grounds because they are not persons’ within the meaning of the Due Process Clause” (City of East St. Louis v Circuit Court for Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Ill., 986 F2d 1142, 1144). Other decisions, without using the term “person,” also support the conclusion that a municipal body may not use the due process clause to challenge legislation of the municipality’s creating state. Thus, “[i]t has long been the case that a municipality may not invoke the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment against its own state . . . A municipality is thus prevented from attacking state legislation on the grounds that the law violates the municipality’s own rights . . . Moreover, while municipalities or other state political subdivisions may challenge the constitutionality of state legislation on certain grounds and in certain circumstances, these do not include challenges brought under the Due Process . . . Clause[] of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . This is because a municipal corporation, in its own right, receives no protection from the . . . Due Process Clause[] vis-a-vis its creating state’ ” … . Matter of County of Chautauqua v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 02245, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

, ,

Criteria for Balancing the Need for a Public Trial and First Amendment Rights (Freedom of the Press) With the Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial Discussed in Some Detail—Here the Court’s Sealing of Some Records and Closures of the Courtroom Reflected a Proper Discretionary Balance

The First Department, in a detailed decision, determined Supreme Court had properly balanced the requirement that a criminal trial be open to the public and the defendant’s right to a fair trial.  Because the court properly used its discretion to balance the two concerns neither mandamus nor prohibition was an available remedy.  The decision is worth reading—many of the issues discussed are not noted here:

The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press a qualified right of access to criminal trials … . This right must be kept in balance with the compelling interest of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the right to privacy of prospective jurors … . The public’s right of access may be limited where there is a compelling governmental interest and closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest … .

New York’s approach to courtroom closure is “comparable to the federal analysis” … . The press is not imbued with any special right of access, and while it possesses “the same right of access as the public,” it has no right to information about a trial that is “greater” or “superior” to that of the general public … . A ” trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity'” … . Decisions to seal or disclose records fall within the inherent power of the court to control the records of its own proceedings … . While a court must guarantee that the defendant receives a fair trial, it must do so in a manner that balances the interests of “the defendant, jurors, witnesses, attorneys and the public at large” … . Matter of Daily News, L.P. v Wiley, 2015 NY Slip Op 02010, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

,

Criteria for a Valid Warrantless Search of a Home Pursuant to the Emergency Exception Described—The Court Noted that One of the Criteria, i.e., that the Police Not Be Primarily Motivated by Intent to Arrest and Seize Evidence, No Longer Applies to Claims Under the US Constitution and May Only Apply to Claims Under the New York Constitution

In affirming County Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion, the Second Department explained the application of the emergency exception to the warrant requirement.  The court noted that there is now a question whether one of the criteria for a valid warrantless search pursuant to the emergency exception, i.e., that the police are not primarily motivated by the intent to arrest and seize evidence, no longer applies under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, and may only apply to claims under the New York Constitution:

“[Al]though warrantless entries into a home are presumptively unreasonable'” …, a warrantless search and seizure in a protected area may be lawful, under some circumstances, pursuant to the emergency doctrine (see People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178…). The exception applies where the police (1) have “reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property,” (2) are “not . . . primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence,” and (3) have a “reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched” (People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d at 177-178…).

The United States Supreme Court has held that the subjective intent of the police is not relevant in determining the reasonableness of police conduct under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (see Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 403). Consequently, the second prong of Mitchell is now relevant, if at all, only to claims raised under the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art I, § 12). We need not determine in this case whether the second prong of Mitchell is still viable under the New York Constitution … , because we conclude that the actions of the police officers were permissible under both Brigham City and Mitchell … . People v Loucks, 2015 NY Slip Op 01471, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

, , ,

Local Law Imposing Residency Restrictions Upon a Level One Sex Offender Who Was No Longer Subject to State Sex-Offender Residency Restrictions Preempted by Implication—The Body of State Law Regulating Sex Offenders Evinced the State’s Intent to “Occupy the Field”

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a Nassau County Local Law which prohibited registered sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of a school was preempted by the body of state law regulating the residency of sex offenders.  In this case, the defendant was adjudicated a level one sex offender (the lowest level of “danger” to the community) and had been discharged from parole.  The state sex-offender residency restrictions no longer applied to him. The Court of Appeals held that the body of law enacted by the state in this area, by implication, evinced an intent to “occupy the field” and therefore local governments did not have the power to enact their own sex-offender residency laws:

Although a local government is constitutionally empowered to enact local laws relating to the welfare of its citizens through its police power, it is prohibited from exercising that power through the adoption of local laws that are inconsistent with the New York State Constitution or any general law of the State (see NY Const, art IX, § 2 [c]; Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 [1] [i]; [ii] [1] [a] [12]). This doctrine of preemption is a significant restriction on a local government’s home rule powers because although localities are “invested with substantial powers both by affirmative grant and by restriction on State powers in matters of local concern, the overriding limitation of the preemption doctrine embodies ‘the untrammeled primacy of the Legislature to act . . . with respect to matters of State concern'” … . * * *

The doctrine of field preemption prohibits a municipality from exercising a police power “when the Legislature has restricted such an exercise by preempting the area of regulation” … . Although field preemption may be “express” as evidenced by the Legislature’s stated directive, it may also “be implied from a declaration of State policy by the Legislature . . . or from the fact that the Legislature has enacted a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme in a particular area” … . Intent to preempt the field may “be implied from the nature of the subject matter being regulated and the purpose and scope of the State legislative scheme, including the need for State-wide uniformity in a given area” … . * * *

The defendant in this appeal is a designated level one sex offender, is not on probation or parole, nor is he subject to conditional release or PRS. None of the [state] provisions that even touch upon residency or placement apply to him. …[T]hat does not mean that the State has delegated to local governments the duty of enacting residency laws concerning registered sex offenders. Nor does it mean … that “the Legislature has chosen to limit its regulations over sex offenders and not to enact a comprehensive legislative scheme in the area concerning the residency restrictions of sex offenders who are not on parole, probation, subject to conditional discharge or seeking public assistance” … . Rather, it is clear that the State has been continuously active in this field and, as such, it is evident that the State has chosen to occupy it. People v Diack, 2015 NY Slip Op 01376, CtApp 2-17-15

 

“Case Management Fee” Imposed Upon Property Owners Who Do Not Correct a Code Violation Within One Year Is an Unconstitutional Penalty Which Requires Due Process Protections

The Fourth Department determined a so-called “case management fee” (CMF) authorized by City of Rochester Municipal Code 90-21 is an unconstitutional penalty imposed without adequate due process.  The code provisions allows the assessment of $100 against a property owner who fails to correct a code violation within one year:

Although “[t]he exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality applies . . . to ordinances of municipalities[,] . . . [that] presumption is rebuttable” …, and we conclude that petitioners have rebutted the presumption of constitutionality.

A determination whether the CMF is a fee or a fine imposed as a penalty is critical to our analysis because “[p]rocedural due process rights do not apply to legislation of general applicability,” and thus the imposition of fees such as licensing fees are “not subject to attack on grounds of procedural due process. Fines [that are imposed as a penalty], however, can implicate procedural due process rights” … . * * *

Having concluded that the CMF is a fine imposed as a penalty on the property owner, we must determine whether the ordinance provides property owners with due process of law. As the Court of Appeals wrote in Morgenthau v Citisource, Inc. (68 NY2d 211), “[w]e have long recognized that due process is a flexible constitutional concept calling for such procedural protections as a particular situation may demand' . . . [,] and in determining whether [f]ederal due process standards have been met, we look to the three distinct factors that form the balancing test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mathews v Eldridge (424 US 319, 335): First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail' ” (id. at 221).

While we agree with the court that the private interest at stake, i.e., $100, “is relatively insubstantial,” we conclude that there is a significant risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures established by the ordinance. * * *

Although ” [d]ue process does not, of course, require that the defendant in every civil case actually have a hearing on the merits' ” …, we conclude that due process requires some type of hearing at which the City should be required to establish that property owners did not abate the violation within the one-year period. Matter of D'Alessandro v Kirkmire, 2015 NY Slip Op 01018, 4th Dept 2-6-15


In Proceedings Seeking the Reduction of Tax Assessments, Court Should Not Have Ordered the Inspection of the Interior of the Homes—The Assessor Did Not Demonstrate Interior Inspections Were Necessary for the Defense and Did Not Demonstrate the Need for the Inspections Outweighed the Homeowners’ Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have ordered inspections of the interior of homes in proceedings where homeowners challenged the tax assessments of their properties:

“Because discovery tends to prolong a case, and is therefore inconsistent with the summary nature of a special proceeding, discovery is granted only where it is demonstrated that there is need for such relief” … . Here, in order for “respondents to establish their entitlement to conduct . . . interior inspection[s] of the petitioner[s'] home[s] for purposes of appraisal, in the absence of the petitioner[s'] consent, . . . respondents bore the burden of demonstrating that [each] particular inspection [was] reasonable' ” …, and ” that interior inspections were necessary to prepare their defense' ” … . We agree with petitioners that respondents failed to make the required showing that interior inspections were reasonable and necessary to prepare their defense … . * * *

In addition to establishing that their request for interior inspections was reasonable and necessary to prepare their defense, respondents were also required to show that their interest in conducting them outweighed petitioners' Fourth Amendment privacy rights … . In determining whether respondents made such a showing, the court was required to “balanc[e] respondents' need for interior inspections [of the homes] against the invasion of petitioners' privacy interests that such inspections would entail” … . Upon our review of the record, we conclude that respondents failed to establish that their interest in interior inspections outweighed petitioners' Fourth Amendment privacy rights … . Matter of Aylward v Assessor, City of Buffalo…, 2015 NY Slip Op 01065, 4th Dept 2-6-15


, , ,

In an Employment Discrimination Case, Plaintiff Is a Member of a Protected Class By Virtue of His Wife’s Religion

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, over a dissent, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether he was the subject of employment discrimination in violation of the Executive Law (State Human Rights Law).  Plaintiff’s wife is Jewish and plaintiff is not. Plaintiff’s co-workers are alleged to have made anti-Semitic remarks and plaintiff alleged his firing was a manifestation of discrimination against members of the Jewish faith.  The question of first impression before the court was whether plaintiff is a member of a protected class by virtue of his wife’s religion.  The Second Department found that he is:

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the State Human Rights Law, a plaintiff who has been terminated from employment must demonstrate (1) that he or she is a member of the class protected by the statute, (2) that he or she was actively or constructively discharged, (3) that he or she was qualified to hold the position from which he or she was terminated, and (4) that the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination … . * * *

The defendants assert that there is no authority to support a claim of discrimination based upon the religious belief of a spouse under the State Human Rights Law. While there is no authority addressing this issue under the State Human Rights Law, several federal courts have construed Title VII to protect individuals “who are the victims of discriminatory animus towards third persons with whom the individuals associate” … . * * *

While the plaintiffs’ allegations call to mind the infamous Nuremberg Laws enacted in 1935, which stripped German Jews of their civil rights and citizenship and prohibited persons of “German or related blood” from marrying or having sexual relations with German Jews, we are aware that the defendants’ alleged conduct is not akin to Town-initiated discrimination. State Human Rights Law claims under Executive Law § 296 are “analytically identical to claims brought under Title VII” …, and thus we see no reason to construe the State statute more restrictively than the federal statute. Accordingly, the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated his membership in a protected class by virtue of the defendants’ alleged discriminatory conduct stemming from his marriage to a Jewish person. Indeed, we note that discrimination against an individual based on his or her association with a member of a protected class also constitutes an infringement upon that individual’s First Amendment right to intimate association, which receives protection as a fundamental element of personal liberty (see Roberts v United States Jaycees, 468 US 609, 617-618 [“choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme”]; Matusick v Erie County Water Auth., 757 F3d 31 [2d Cir] [where plaintiff, a white male, alleged that he was discriminated against and terminated from his employment because of his engagement to an African-American female, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recognized, for the first time, that a constitutionally protected right to intimate association based upon marriage engagement could be the predicate for a claim that the defendants, while acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in violation of 42 USC § 1983]). Chiara v Town of New Castle, 2015 NY Slip Op 00326, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

, , ,

Seizure of Claimant’s Computers Pursuant to a Warrant Did Not Give Rise to Conversion, Negligent Misrepresentation and Constitutional Tort Causes of Action—Elements of Those Causes of Action Explained

The Fourth Department reversed the Court of Claims and dismissed causes of action for conversion and negligent misrepresentation stemming from the seizure of claimant’s computers pursuant to a judicial warrant.  The court noted that the seizure pursuant to the authority of the warrant precluded the conversion cause of action and the absence of privity between the claimant and the investigators who said the computers would be promptly returned precluded the negligent representation cause of action. Alternate ways to seek return of the computers (an application to County Court and an Article 78 proceeding if the application were denied) precluded the constitutional tort cause of action:

An actionable “conversion takes place when someone, intentionally and without authority, assumes or exercises control over personal property belonging to someone else, interfering with that person’s right of possession” … . Here, a search warrant specifically authorized law enforcement to “search for and seize” six categories of items, including “[a]ll computers and computer storage media and related peripherals, electronic or computer data.” Claimants have never challenged the validity of the search warrant. Moreover, the unchallenged warrant placed no time limit on the retention of the items seized, and the authorization to “seize” the computers was not terminated until County Court ordered the property returned following Boerman’s guilty plea. We therefore conclude that defendant’s exercise of control over the computers did not constitute conversion inasmuch as it had the proper authority to exercise such control … .

The tort of “negligent misrepresentation requires [a claimant] to demonstrate (1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to the plaintiff; (2) that the information was incorrect; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information’ ” … . We agree with defendant that, as a matter of law, there can be no “privity-like relationship” between an investigator and the target of his or her investigation … . Indeed, the relationship between investigator and target is the opposite of a “special position of confidence and trust” in which one party might justifiably rely upon the ” unique or specialized expertise’ ” of the other party … . Thus, as defendant correctly contends, the negligent misrepresentation claim fails as a matter of law … .

Even assuming, arguendo, that the initial seizure or continued detention of claimants’ computers violated the Search and Seizure Clause of the State Constitution (art I, § 12), we conclude that “no . . . claim [for constitutional tort] will lie where the claimant has an adequate remedy in an alternate forum” … . Here, claimants could have raised their constitutional arguments in an application to County Court seeking the return of their computers … or, if such motion were denied, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking relief in the nature of mandamus or prohibition … . LM Bis Assoc Inc v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00007, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

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