You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , , ,

The Third Dept Upheld the Statutory Amendment Cutting Off Reimbursement of Medicaid Overburden Expenses Incurred Prior to 2006—However the Court Imposed a Six-Month Grace Period Before the Amendment Kicks In [The Fourth Dept Dealt with the Same Question in a Decision Dated 11-14-14—Although the Fourth Dept Also Upheld the Amendment, It Did Not Impose a Grace Period and Did Not Use the Same Reasoning]

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, 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 4th Department dealt with the same issues in Matter of County of Niagara v Shah, 2014 NY Slip Op 07781, 4th Dept 11-14-14.  Although the two courts came to similar, but not identical, conclusions, it is interesting to see the substantial differences in reasoning and result.  Unlike the 4th Department, the Third Department imposed a six-month grace period, starting from the date of the decision, before the prohibition against reimbursement for pre-2006 expenses kicks in. The Third Department dealt with several issues, including:  (1) whether a political subdivision of a state can make a due process claim against the state (the court deemed the issue waived); (2) the amendment of the statute essentially imposed a statute of limitations and therefore did not extinguish a vested right to reimbursement; (3) the amendment is not unconstitutional because the new statute of limitations does not retroactively affect any substantive rights; (4) the special facts exception did not apply; (5) petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring payment of the pre-2006 expenses (because of the grace period):

Social Services Law § 368-a and the 2012 amendment can be read together and “interpreted to achieve legislative objectives that are not inherently inconsistent with each other” … . This Court has already held that, under Social Services Law § 368-a (1) (h), petitioner’s right to reimbursement of overburden expenditures accrued when petitioner made payment to the state for those expenses for which no local share was owed, i.e., prior to January 1, 2006 … . The 2012 amendment did not specifically repeal any part of Social Services Law § 368-a or affect the counties’ inherent right to reimbursement. Rather, the amendment simply imposed a statute of limitations for the payment of claims for such reimbursement. A statute of limitations does not impair an underlying substantive right, but may deprive a litigant of any remedy … . In April 2012, the Legislature could have reasonably decided that, to promote finality of claims and effectuate accurate budgeting, reimbursements from more than six years earlier could be barred. Although petitioner contends that DOH was required by statute to reimburse all counties for overburden expenditures incurred prior to 2006, and that DOH did not comply with its statutory obligations, “[a] statute of limitations may apply even when conduct inconsistent with a statute or the state constitution is alleged” … . Matter of County of St. Lawrence v Shah, 2014 NY Slip Op 08278, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

, , ,

Defendant, a County Sheriff, May Not Have Had the Authority to Order the Plaintiff to Leave the Airport/Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Defendant Had Probable Cause to Arrest Plaintiff for Trespass and Disorderly Conduct/Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Excessive Force Was Used and Whether Plaintiff Was Subjected to Retaliation for the Use of Protected Speech

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s “false arrest” cause of action, and Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s “excessive force” and “retaliation for the use of protected speech” causes of action. The lawsuit stemmed from plaintiff’s being told by airport personnel that her daughter had not arrived as expected because she missed a connecting flight.  Plaintiff became upset when she couldn’t learn more about the status of her daughter.  Defendant, a county sheriff, came on the scene, ordered plaintiff to leave the airport, and, when plaintiff refused, arrested her for trespass and disorderly conduct. The Third Department determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, as well as whether excessive force was used and whether the defendant acted in retaliation for protected speech. With respect to the trespass arrest, the court noted that defendant may not have had the authority to order plaintiff to leave the airport:

In assessing whether defendant met his initial burden of establishing that he had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff for trespass, proof of defendant’s authority to issue the blanket order directing plaintiff to leave the public facility must be examined. This is so because the “right to exclude ‘has traditionally been considered one of the most treasured strands in an owner’s bundle of property rights'” … and, unless otherwise authorized, police do not have the inherent and general rights of a property owner (see e.g. US Const 4th Amend). The record demonstrates that, on the day in question, defendant was a county employee working in the county airport, a public facility. In support of his motion, defendant provided no proof that he was either prescribed by law or directed by the Tompkins County legislature to exercise any authority to lawfully order a citizen to leave this public property (see County Law § 650…). Nor did defendant’s proffer demonstrate that he was asked to remove plaintiff from the airport property by someone with the authority to do so … . Therefore, defendant did not establish as a matter of law that he had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff for criminal trespass because issues of fact exist as to whether, at the time of arrest, it was reasonable for defendant to believe that plaintiff was disobeying a lawful order … . Brown v Hoffman, 2014 NY Slip Op 08099, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

, ,

Failure to Apply for Zoning Variance Re: Sale of Adult Materials Rendered Plaintiff’s Free-Speech Challenge to the Code Speculative, i.e., Not Ripe for Review

The Third Department determined that plaintiff’s free-speech-violation claims re: the city’s failure to specify a zone for the sale of adult material were not ripe for review.  Plaintiff did not inform the city of his intent to sell adult material and did not use the procedures in place to obtain a zoning variance allowing the sale of adult material:

We shall not address plaintiff’s assertion that the failure of the Code of the City of Troy to specify a zone where adult materials may be sold violates plaintiff’s free speech rights under both the US and NY Constitutions, as this issue is not ripe for our review. According to the City’s Assistant Plans Examiner, if a particular use was not set forth in the list of allowed uses or special permit uses enumerated in the Code, as was the case with adult establishments, a use variance could be obtained by seeking approval from the appropriate zoning board. Because [plaintiff’s principal] did not disclose the extent of plaintiff’s sale of adult material in applying for a certificate of occupancy, and therefore did not follow the process set out in the Code to apply for a use variance, any harm that plaintiff may have suffered pursuant to such Code was speculative and contingent upon the City’s anticipated rejection of plaintiff’s proposal. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Code is not ripe for review … . Your Place LLC v City of Troy, 2014 NY Slip Op 08098, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

, ,

Regulation of Use of Vacant Wetlands Constituted a Regulatory Taking—Analytical Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined that the regulations imposed on vacant wetlands constituted a regulatory taking of the land and affirmed Supreme Court’s evaluation of the taking.  The court included an in-depth discussion of the analytical criteria:

In a condemnation proceeding, a property restricted by wetlands regulations is valued pursuant to the restrictions imposed by the wetlands regulations at the time of the taking, unless the claimant can demonstrate a reasonable probability that “a higher or more productive use of the property would have been available by reason of a legislative rezoning or a judicial declaration of invalidity of the use restriction” … . “A landowner who claims that land regulation has effected a taking of his [or her] property bears the heavy burden of overcoming the presumption of constitutionality that attaches to the regulation and of proving every element of his [or her] claim beyond a reasonable doubt” … .

Generally, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking … . Analysis of whether nonpossessory governmental regulation of property has gone so far as to constitute a taking involves factual inquires in which three factors of particular significance have been identified: (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” … .

As to the first factor, “the property owner must show by dollars and cents’ evidence that under no use permitted by the regulation under attack would the properties be capable of producing a reasonable return; the economic value, or all but a bare residue of the economic value, of the parcels must have been destroyed by the regulations at issue” … . Accordingly, standing alone, a serious and significant diminution of property value will typically not be deemed to constitute a regulatory taking … . * * *

Although the claimants admit that, at trial, they did not set forth any evidence with respect to the second factor …, under the circumstances presented here, such an omission is not fatal to their claim, especially upon consideration of the third factor. Under the third factor, generally, a property owner “must establish that the regulation attacked so restricts his [or her] property that he [or she] is precluded from using it for any purpose for which it is reasonably adapted” … . Matter of New Cr Bluebelt, Phase 4, 2014 NY Slip OP 08029, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

,

Judge Effectively Rescinded the Initial Declaration of a Mistrial and Left the Decision Whether to Declare a Mistrial Up to the Defendant—Because the Defendant Ultimately Agreed to the Mistrial the Double Jeopardy Prohibition Was Not Triggered

The Court of Appeals determined that, although the trial judge initially declared a mistrial without defense counsel’s consent, the judge effectively rescinded the declaration by leaving it up to the defendant to decide whether a mistrial should be declared (defense counsel had objected to the way the judge was handling the trial).  Because the mistrial was ultimately agreed to by the defendant, a second trial was not precluded by the double jeopardy prohibition:

Until the jury is discharged, a court may rescind its previous declaration of mistrial (see People v Dawkins, 82 NY2d 226 [1993]). Defendant argues that in this case the trial judge never formally rescinded his initial mistrial ruling, and so whether or not she indicated her consent after that ruling is irrelevant. Certainly, the judge never expressly said “I rescind my order declaring a mistrial.” But we have never required any particular language to be used to retract a prior order. Here, the record makes clear that the trial judge was leaving the mistrial decision up to defendant. Because she decided to “go with a mistrial,” and thus consented to it, her double jeopardy claim fails. Matter of Gorman v Rice, 2014 NY Slip Op 07923, CtApp 11-18-14

 

, ,

Petition by the District Attorney Against the Sentencing Judge Seeking Vacation of the Sentence Imposed, Because the District Attorney Did Not Agree to It, Dismissed—Granting the Petition Would Direct the Judge to Violate Criminal Procedure law 220.10(4) and Would Violate the Defendant’s Protection Against Double Jeopardy

The Fourth Department dismissed a petition brought against a judge by a district attorney seeking the vacation of a plea on the ground that the district attorney did not agree to it.  The district attorney argued he had agreed to a six-year sentence, not the five-year sentence imposed by the judge:

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus ” is never granted for the purpose of compelling the performance of an unlawful act’ ” …, and the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that, after the entry of judgment and the commencement of sentence, courts have no statutory or inherent authority to vacate, over a defendant’s objection, a plea taken in contravention of CPL 220.10 or related statutory provisions … . Indeed, absent extrinsic fraud, “[i]n no instance ha[s the Court of Appeals] recognized a court’s inherent [or statutory] power to vacate a plea and sentence over defendant’s objection where the error goes beyond mere clerical error apparent on the face of the record and where the proceeding has terminated by the entry of judgment” … . Thus, mandamus does not lie here because we cannot compel respondent to exceed his statutory and inherent authority by directing him to vacate a plea taken in violation of CPL 220.10 (4) (a) after the commencement of sentence.

Furthermore, “restor[ing] the matter to its pre-plea status,” as petitioner seeks, would violate defendant’s constitutional protections against double jeopardy … . Contrary to petitioner’s contention, CPL 40.30 (3) “does not aid the analysis of the double jeopardy issue” … . The Court of Appeals has held that a plea taken without the People’s consent is not a nullity for purposes of that provision … .

Apart from the legal infirmities of petitioner’s position, we further conclude that the record does not factually support that position. Specifically, the record belies petitioner’s contention that his consent to defendant’s plea was conditioned on the imposition of a determinate, six-year term of imprisonment. Matter of Budelmann v Leone, 2014 NY Slip Op 07797, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , , ,

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

 

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