You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , , ,

The “Special Facts” Exception to the Retroactive Applicability of a Statute Does Not Apply/A Statute Cannot Be Interpreted to Render Language Superfluous/A Municipality Cannot Challenge the Constitutionality of a State Statute/Lack of Capacity to Sue Does Not Deprive the Court of Jurisdiction

The Fourth Department determined that a 2012 amendment to the Social Services Law (section 61) eliminated the requirement that counties be reimbursed by the state for certain medicaid expenses (so-called “Overburden expenses”) incurred prior to 2006, when the medicaid “Cap Statute” was enacted.  The court dealt with several issues, including:  (1) the retroactive effect of the 2012 amendment; (2) the effect of the amendment cannot be avoided under the “special facts” exception; (3) the amendment cannot be interpreted to render language superfluous; (4) municipalities cannot challenge the constitutionality of statutes; and (4) the lack of the capacity to sue, unlike standing, does not go to the jurisdiction of the court:

Section 61 clearly states that no further claims for reimbursement of overburden expenditures will be paid, notwithstanding Social Services Law § 368-h. Thus, the unequivocal wording of section 61 retroactively extinguishes petitioner’s right to submit claims for reimbursement of overburden expenditures made prior to 2006. “The retroactivity of a statute which is expressly retroactive, as here, will generally be defeated only if such retroactivity would violate due process or some other specific constitutional precept” … .

Here, however, in granting the cross motion, Supreme Court ordered that petitioner’s claims be “treated under Social Services Law § 368-a as [they] existed at the time that Petitioner incurred the Overburden expenses on Respondents’ behalf, pursuant to the special facts exception.” We agree with respondents that the special facts exception does not apply in this situation. Insofar as relevant here, that exception provides that “a court may deny an agency the benefit of a change in the law when it has intentionally or even negligently delayed action on [a claim] until after the law had been amended to authorize denial of the” claim … . There is no indication that resolution of the claims at issue was delayed until section 61 was enacted. * * *

It is well settled that, in interpreting a statute, a court ” must assume that the Legislature did not deliberately place a phrase in the statute that was intended to serve no purpose’ ” …, and must avoid an interpretation that ” result[s] in the nullification of one part of [a statute] by another’ ” … . Thus, “[a] construction that would render a provision superfluous is to be avoided” … . * * *

In its cross motion for summary judgment, petitioner sought, inter alia, judgment declaring that section 61 is unconstitutional because the statute deprived petitioner of due process by removing its vested rights. “[T]he traditional principle throughout the United States has been that municipalities and other local governmental corporate entities and their officers lack capacity to mount constitutional challenges to acts of the State and State legislation. This general incapacity to sue flows from judicial recognition of the juridical as well as political relationship between those entities and the State. Constitutionally as well as a matter of historical fact, municipal corporate bodies–—counties, towns and school districts—–are merely subdivisions of the State, created by the State for the convenient carrying out of the State’s governmental powers and responsibilities as its agents. Viewed, therefore, by the courts as purely creatures or agents of the State, it followed that municipal corporate bodies cannot have the right to contest the actions of their principal or creator affecting them in their governmental capacity or as representatives of their inhabitants” … .

It is equally well settled, however, that “[t]he issue of lack of capacity to sue does not go to the jurisdiction of the court, as is the case when the plaintiffs lack standing. Rather, lack of capacity to sue is a ground for dismissal which must be raised by motion and is otherwise waived” … . Matter of County of Niagara v Shah, 2014 NY Slip Op 07781, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

Dispute Within a Religious Organization Could Not Be Decided by Application of Neutral Law But Rather Would Require Looking Behind an Ecclesiastical Determination, An Inquiry Prohibited by the Establishment Clause

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, over an extensive dissent, determined that the courts could not intervene in a dispute which had arisen within a Buddhist organization called the China Buddhist Association (CBA).  The court determined the dispute could not be decided by the application of neutral law, but rather would have required deciding whether petitioners had been properly excommunicated, an entirely religious inquiry:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is binding on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees religious bodies “independence from secular control or manipulation — in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine” … . Consequently, courts are forbidden from “interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs” … . Only when disputes can be resolved by neutral principles of law may the courts step in … . The issues before us, however, cannot be resolved through the application of “neutral principles of law” but entail an inquiry into the validity of petitioners’ excommunications. Because this is an entirely ecclesiastical matter, we are forbidden from such an inquiry … . * * *

It is impermissible for a court to look behind an ecclesiastical determination or act to examine the subjective reasons for which it was undertaken … . Matter of Ming Tung v China Buddhist Assn, 2014 NY Slip Op 07777, 1st Dept 11-13-14

 

,

Defendant Was Apparently Erroneously Sentenced to Five Years When the Correct Sentence Was 15 Years—Pursuant to a Resettlement of the Sentencing Transcript Two Months After Defendant’s Release, He Was Resentenced to 15 Years—Because Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Finality Re: the Five-Year Sentence, the Resentence Violated the Double Jeopardy Clause

The Second Department determined defendant’s resentencing violated the Double Jeopardy clause.  Defendant had been erroneously sentenced to five years for criminal possession of a weapon when the sentence apparently should have been 15 years.  After defendant’s successful habeas corpus action, his assault conviction was vacated and he was released from prison, having served 8 years.  Two months after his release, pursuant to a resettlement proceeding to correct an error in the sentencing transcript, the defendant was resentenced to 15 years and reincarcerated:

Courts possess “the inherent power to correct their records, where the correction relates to mistakes, or errors, which may be termed clerical in their nature, or where it is made in order to conform the record to the truth” … . This inherent authority extends to circumstances “where it clearly appears that a mistake or error occurred at the time a sentence was imposed” … . However, as with resentencing, an order correcting an error in a transcript of a sentencing proceeding is subject to a temporal limitation imposed by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution … .

The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a sentence from being increased once a defendant has a legitimate expectation of finality of the sentence … . “[A] legitimate expectation of finality turns on the completion of a sentence” … . Here, the resettlement of the sentencing transcript almost three years after the sentence was purportedly satisfied, and more than two months after the defendant’s release from prison in purported full satisfaction of that sentence, violated the constitutional prohibition on subjecting a criminal defendant to double jeopardy. For more than seven years after the sentence was imposed, the People represented to the defendant, and to State and federal courts, that the transcript accurately reflected a five-year sentence. Accordingly, upon his release from prison, the defendant had served out his sentence “as reasonably understood by all the parties” … . He thus acquired a legitimate expectation of finality with respect to the sentence, and the later resettlement of the transcript of the sentencing proceeding violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause … . People v Langston, 2014 NY Slip Op 07182, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

, ,

After a Mistrial in a Criminal Matter, a Prohibition Action Seeking to Bar Retrial on Double Jeopardy Grounds Must Be Brought Within Four Months of a Definitive Demonstration of the People’s Intent to Re-Prosecute

The Court of Appeals, over a concurring opinion which disagreed with the majority's grounds, determined that the four-month statute of limitations was not tolled under a “continuing harm” theory and the prohibition action was time-barred.  The trial court had declared a mistrial because, during deliberations, one of the 12 jurors was removed for misconduct.  It was clear shortly after the mistrial that the prosecution was preparing for a second trial. Two years after the mistrial was declared, the defendant brought a prohibition action seeking to prohibit the second trial on Double Jeopardy grounds:

A four-month limitations period applies to CPLR article 78 prohibition proceedings (see CPLR 217 [1]…) and the petition here was filed more than two years after the mistrial was declared. Although a tolling period for continuing harm has been recognized … and would be adopted by our concurring colleague, we reject its application in this situation. Once the People definitively demonstrated their intent to re-prosecute and the court began to calendar the case for eventual trial, Smith was obligated to initiate his Double Jeopardy-based article 78 challenge within the statutorily prescribed time frame. On the facts of this case, that period expired well before prohibition was sought, and therefore, the proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations. Matter of Smith v Brown, 2014 NY Slip OP 07090, CtApp 10-21-14

 

, ,

No Manifest Necessity for Declaring a Mistrial Over Defendant’s Objection–Double Jeopardy Barred Retrial

The Second Department determined there was no “manifest necessity” for the trial court’s declaring a mistrial (over defendant’s objection) and therefore retrial was precluded.  The jury informed the court it had reached a verdict one count but could not reach a verdict on the remaining two counts. The defendant asked the court to accept a partial verdict and the court refused.  Subsequently a juror asked to be excused due to an emergency.  The defendant, at the court’s urging, agreed to excuse the juror and renewed his request for a partial verdict.  The request was again refused and the defendant did not agree to the substitution of an alternate juror.  The court, on its own motion, declared a mistrial. When the court ruled defendant could be retried on the two counts on which the jury could not agree, defendant brought an application for prohibition:

Prohibition is the traditional remedy where a defendant seeks protection against double jeopardy … and the writ lies in this case. * * *

When a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, double jeopardy will, as a general rule, bar retrial … . However, the right to have one’s case decided by the first empaneled jury is not absolute, and a mistrial granted as the product of manifest necessity will not bar a retrial … . ” Manifest necessity’ means a high degree of necessity’; the reasons underlying the grant of a mistrial must be necessitous, actual and substantial'” … . Even if the reasons for declaring a mistrial are deemed actual and substantial, the court must explore all appropriate alternatives prior to declaring a mistrial … .

Here, the trial court failed to explore all appropriate alternatives before declaring, on its own motion, a mistrial … . Accordingly, there was no manifest necessity for the declaration of a mistrial and, thus, retrial on counts two and three of the indictment is precluded.  Matter of Gentil v Margulis, 2014 NY Slip Op 06314, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

, ,

Pulling Defendant from Inside His Home for Warrantless Arrest Violated the Fourth Amendment

The Second Department determined that a new trial was required because defendant’s statement should have been suppressed.  The police pulled the defendant from inside his home to arrest him without a warrant, a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The Second Department noted, however, that the trial court did not err in refusing the suppress evidence of a post-arrest lineup identification:

Here, the police knocked on the defendant’s door at approximately 6:50 a.m. When the defendant answered the door he appeared to be “half asleep,” and was naked from the waist down. He only partially opened the door, was never in full view of the police, and never crossed the threshold of his apartment. When the police directed the defendant to step fully into view, the defendant instead attempted to shut the door, trapping a detective’s arm as the detective tried to keep the door from closing. After law enforcement officials successfully pushed the door open, they pulled the defendant from the area behind the door into the public hallway, where he was then arrested.

Under the discrete circumstances of this case, where the police officers crossed the threshold into the defendant’s apartment, pulled him into the hallway, and arrested him without a warrant, the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated … . People v Riffas, 2014 NY Slip Op 06333, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

, ,

County Could Seek Judicial Intervention Re: the Collection of a County Hotel Tax Without Exhausting Administrative Remedies—Constitutional Underpinning of Local Tax Laws Explained

The Second Department, in determining the plaintiff county was not required to exhaust its administrative remedies (and then commence an Article 78 proceeding) in order to seek judicial review of whether the defendant has been paying the correct amount of a county hotel and motel accommodation tax, explained the underpinning of local tax law in New York:

The appellants contend that the branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the first cause of action seeking enforcement of the Hotel Tax against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should have been granted because, inter alia, the Enabling Act required the plaintiff to exhaust certain administrative remedies before judicial intervention could be obtained, and that the plaintiff failed to do so.

In New York, local governments do not have an independent power to tax. The New York Constitution vests the taxing power in the State Legislature and authorizes the Legislature to delegate that power to local governments (see NY Const, art. XVI, § 1…). The New York Constitution places fundamental limitations on such delegations. The Legislature must describe with specificity the taxes authorized by any enabling statute (see NY Const, art XVI, § 1…). In turn, local governments can only levy and collect taxes within the expressed limitations of specific enabling legislation (see NY Const, art IX, § 2[c][8]…).

As a general rule, tax statutes should be strictly construed and limited to their terms, which should not be extended by implication … . Any ambiguity in a tax law should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer and against the taxing authority … .

Applying these principles here, contrary to the appellants’ contention, the plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before commencing this action, and judicial review is not limited to a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 … . County of Nassau v Expedia Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06049, 2nd Dept 9-1014

 

, ,

Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine Whether Exigent Circumstances Justified Warrantless Forced Entry to an Apartment

The First Department determined that the motion court should have held a hearing to determine whether the forced entry of an apartment was justified by exigent circumstances.  At the time of defendant’s motion for a hearing, the facts surrounding the incident were not available to the defendant and the People’s response to the motion was “conclusory:”

In denying defendant’s application for a hearing, the Court summarily found that exigent circumstances justified the pursuit and warrantless entry, based upon the individuals in the hallway reportedly having smoked marijuana, then racing into the apartment and locking the door, and the need to prevent destruction of evidence. Defendant argues in his brief that at most some individuals were seen smoking marijuana, a class B misdemeanor that would not present exigent circumstances sufficient for a forced entry.

Under the circumstances presented here, where the information proffered by the People to support the forcible entry was conclusory and defendant did not have access to available information, we find that it was incumbent upon the motion court to conduct a hearing to determine whether there were sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the forced warrantless entry… . People v Chamlee, 2014 NY Slip Op 05921, 1st Dept 8-21-14

 

, , ,

Defense Counsel Should Have Been Allowed to Cross-Examine Cooperating Accomplice/Witness to Demonstrate Motivation and Bias

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that the curtailment of cross-examination of a cooperating witness deprived defendant of his right to confront the witnesses against him.  Four were charged in a robbery.  One of the four, referred to as “M,” entered a cooperation agreement and testified against the defendant. Defense counsel was prohibited from asking M a line of questions intended to reveal M’s motivation and bias:

Here, defendant sought … [to question] M. in an attempt to cast doubt on his credibility by revealing his bias and motive to fabricate testimony. Defense counsel’s theory was that M. had implicated defendant in the prior uncharged robberies in order to bolster the value of his cooperation agreement with the People. This was unquestionably an appropriate trial strategy, since “exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination” … . That M. intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to answer the questions does not abrogate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. As an accomplice witness, M.’s credibility, bias, and motive to fabricate were not collateral issues … . Therefore, defense counsel should have been permitted to question him on the prior crimes. If he subsequently invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, the trial court should have gone as far as striking all or some of his direct testimony … . At a minimum, the court should have pursued the “least drastic relief” (typically reserved for “collateral matters or cumulative testimony concerning credibility”) by instructing the jury that it could consider M.’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment in determining his credibility … . People v McLeod, 2014 NY Slip Op 05926, 1st Dept 8-21-14

 

, ,

Distinction Between New York College Funds, Which Are Protected Against Creditors, and College Funds Established in Other States, Which Are Not Protected, Does Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause

The Second Department determined that a college fund established under the laws of New Hampshire, unlike a college fund established under the laws of New York, was not entitled to the protection from creditors afforded by CPLR 5205.  The distinction between New York funds and funds established in other states was deemed to be constitutional:

The parties do not dispute that the protection from creditors afforded by CPLR 5205(j)(2) to college tuition savings program accounts defined in 26 USC § 529 (hereinafter 529 savings plans) does not apply where, as here, the accounts are not qualified college savings program accounts established pursuant to the New York State College Choice Tuition Saving Program, as set forth in Education Law article 14-A. The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the distinction made in CPLR 5205(j) between 529 savings plans established under the laws of New York, and those established in other states, or under the laws of other states, does not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. Since the classification “is not based on an inherently suspect characteristic and does not impermissibly interfere with the exercise of a fundamental right, it need only rationally further a legitimate state interest to be upheld as constitutional” … . Applying this standard of rational basis review, the court properly determined that CPLR 5205(j) was not unconstitutional, as the disparate treatment is not ” so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes'” as to be irrational … . County Bank v Broderick, 2014 NY Slip Op 05621, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

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