You are here: / Constitutional Law
, ,

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

 

, , ,

In the Context of a Challenge to the Tax Assessment of a Home, the Town Must Obtain a Warrant Based Upon Probable Cause Before It Can Enter the Home (Over the Homeowner’s Objection) to Inspect it

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, determined that the Town did not make the requisite showing to justify an inspection of the interior of petitioner’s home.  Petitioner had challenged the tax assessment of her property.  Supreme Court had ruled the Town could enter petitioner’s home to inspect it.  The Second Department reversed, finding that Supreme Court improperly placed the burden on the petitioner to demonstrate why inspection should not be allowed.  The burden should have been placed on the Town to make a showing that a warrant allowing entry of the home was supported by probable cause:

We hold that the Town respondents bore the burden of demonstrating their entitlement to enter the petitioner’s home over her objections. The petitioner bore no burden, in the first instance, to demonstrate her right to preclude the Town respondents from entering into her home against her will. The right to be free from unreasonable searches is granted by the Fourth Amendment, and made applicable to the States and their subdivisions by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (see Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643), though this right is by no means absolute. By directing the petitioner to move to preclude the Town’s appraiser from conducting an interior appraisal inspection of her home, the Supreme Court improperly shifted, from the Town respondents, the burden of demonstrating their entitlement to enter into the petitioner’s home, to the petitioner to demonstrate her right to preclude the Town respondents from sending an agent into her home. We further hold that, based on a proper balancing of the Town respondents’ interest in conducting the inspection against the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the privacy invasion that such a “search” would entail, the Town respondents failed to satisfy their burden. * * *

Since the Town respondents sought entry into the petitioner’s home to have the Town’s appraiser conduct an inspection of the premises, the Town respondents were required to obtain a warrant upon a showing of probable cause. By directing the petitioner to move to preclude the Town respondents from conducting an interior inspection of her home, the Supreme Court improperly shifted the burden from the Town respondents to demonstrate their entitlement to entry into the petitioner’s home upon a showing of probable cause, to the petitioner to demonstrate her right to deny entry to the Town respondents … . “[B]y erroneously requiring [the] petitioner[ ] to move to preclude, the court did not properly evaluate the reasonableness of the inspections sought by respondents, i.e., the court did not conduct the necessary Fourth Amendment analysis balancing respondents’ need for interior inspections against the invasion of petitioner[‘s] privacy interests that such inspections would entail” … . Matter of Jacobowitz v Board of Assessors for the Town of Cornwall, 2014 NY Slip Op 05544, 2nd Dept 7-30-14

 

,

Albany County Cyberbullying Criminal Statute Overly Broad

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a dissent, determined that a statute passed by the Albany County Legislature, aimed at criminalizing cyberbullying, was too vague and broad to survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment:

Based on the text of the statute at issue, it is evident that Albany County “create[d] a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth”… . The language of the local law embraces a wide array of applications that prohibit types of protected speech far beyond the cyberbullying of children … . As written, the Albany County law in its broadest sense criminalizes “any act of communicating . . . by mechanical or electronic means . . . with no legitimate . . . personal . . . purpose, with the intent to harass [or] annoy. . . another person.” On its face, the law covers communications aimed at adults, and fictitious or corporate entities, even though the county legislature justified passage of the provision based on the detrimental effects that cyberbullying has on school-aged children. The county law also lists particular examples of covered communications, such as “posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs; disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information, or sending hate mail.” But such methods of expression are not limited to instances of cyberbullying — the law includes every conceivable form of electronic communication, such as telephone conversations, a ham radio transmission or even a telegram. In addition, the provision pertains to electronic communications that are meant to “harass, annoy . . . taunt . . . [or] humiliate” any person or entity, not just those that are intended to “threaten, abuse . . . intimidate, torment . . . or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on” a child. In considering the facial implications, it appears that the provision would criminalize a broad spectrum of speech outside the popular understanding of cyberbullying, including, for example: an email disclosing private information about a corporation or a telephone conversation meant to annoy an adult.  People v Marquan M, 2014 NY Slip Op 04881, CtApp 7-1-14

 

, ,

Past Domestic Violence Admissible to Show Intent in Rape Case—Victim’s Statements in Hospital Report Admissible under Business Records Exception/Confrontation Clause Not Implicated Because Statements Were Not Testimonial—Victim’s Statements Shortly After the Rape Admissible as Excited Utterances

In a case where the defendant was charged with raping his ex-girlfriend, the Third Department determined past incidents of domestic violence were properly allowed in evidence to demonstrate intent, statements made by the victim (who died before trial from an unrelated cause) included in a hospital report were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and statements made by the victim shortly after the rape were admissible as excited utterances.  With respect to the hospital records, the court wrote:

County Court properly allowed admission of statements that the victim made during her medical examination. “Hospital records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule as long as the information relates to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment” … . Details of the abuse, even including the perpetrator’s identity, may be relevant to diagnosis and treatment when the assault occurs within a domestic violence relationship because the medical provider must consider the victim’s safety when creating a discharge plan and gauging the patient’s psychological needs … . The physician who examined the victim testified that all of the information in the medical records was relevant to and gathered for purposes of diagnosis or treatment, and the primary purpose of the examination was to care for the patient’s health and safety, although a secondary purpose of the forensic examination was to gather evidence that could be used in the future for purposes of prosecution. Considering this information, although the victim was unavailable to testify because she died before trial (from causes unrelated to defendant’s crimes), defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated because the statements were not testimonial… . People v Pham, 2014 NY Slip Op 04276, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

,

Church’s Decision to Terminate Minister Constitutionally Protected Under “Ministerial Exception”

The First Department determined a minister who brought a wrongful termination action was, according to the terms of the personnel manual, an at will employee.  In addition the claim was barred by the ministerial exception under which a church’s decisions concerning the employment of a minister are constitutionally protected:

…[T]he ministerial exception also bars plaintiff’s claim, which primarily involves intra-church matters. “Under the ministerial exception’ …, a church’s decision to hire, to fire, and to prescribe the duties of its minister are commonly held to be constitutionally protected” … . Mills v Standing Gen Commn on Christian Unity & Interreligious Concerns, 2014 NY Slip Op 03437, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

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