You are here: / Constitutional Law
,

HAIL Act Regulating Taxi Cabs and Livery Vehicles in New York City Does Not Violate Home Rule Section of State Constitution

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Piggot, held that the so-called HAIL Act, which regulates taxi cabs and livery vehicles in New York City, was not an unconstitutional special law in violation of the Home Rule Clause of the New York State Constitution because the statute benefits all New Yorkers, not just New York City residents:

At issue on this appeal is the constitutionality of chapter 602 of the Laws of 2011, as amended by chapter 9 of the Laws of 2012 (“HAIL Act”), which regulates medallion taxicabs (or “yellow cabs”) and livery vehicles, vital parts of New York City’s transportation system. The Act’s stated aim is to address certain mobility deficiencies in the City of New York, namely: the lack of accessible vehicles for residents and non-residents with disabilities; the dearth of available yellow cabs in the four boroughs outside Manhattan (“outer boroughs”), where residents and non-residents must instead rely on livery vehicles; and the sparse availability of yellow cab service outside Manhattan’s central business district. * * *

We conclude that the HAIL Act addresses a matter of substantial State concern. This is not a purely local issue. Millions of people from within and without the State visit the City annually. Some of these visitors are disabled, and will undoubtably benefit from the increase in accessible vehicles in the Manhattan central business district and in the outer boroughs. The Act is for the benefit of all New Yorkers, and not merely those residing within the City. Efficient transportation services in the State’s largest City and international center of commerce is important to the entire State. The Act plainly furthers all of these significant goals. Greater New York Taxi Association v State of New York…, Nos 98, 99, 100, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

,

Different Monetary Standards in Wicks Law (Re: Bids for Construction Contracts) for Different Regions of State Did Not Violate Home Rule Section of State Constitution

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that the Wicks Law, as amended, did not violate the Home Rule section of the State Constitution.  The Wicks Law “requires public entities seeking bids on construction contracts to obtain ‘separate specification’ for three ‘subdivisions of the work to be performed’—generally, plumbing, electrical and HVAC…”.  Until 2008 the Wicks Law applied to all contracts which exceeded $50,000.  The 2008 amendment raised the contract-amounts and imposed different thresholds for New York City, Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties, and the 54 remaining counties.  The Home Rule section provides: “(b) Subject to the bill of rights of local governments and other applicable provisions of this constitution, the legislature:  . . .  (2) Shall have the power to act in relation to the property, affairs or government of any local government only by general law, or by special law… .”  There was no attempt to comply with the “special law” requirements.  The Court of Appeals determined that the proper test for determining whether the Home Rule section has been complied with is whether the statute relates primarily to a “matter of State concern:”

“The test is . . . that if the subject be in a substantial degree a matter of State concern, the Legislature may act, though intermingled with it are concerns of the locality… .” * * * This principle controls this case. It can hardly be disputed, and plaintiffs here do not dispute, that the manner of bidding on public construction contracts is a matter of substantial State concern. The existence of the Wicks Law itself for the last century, and of much other legislation governing public contracting (e.g., General Municipal Law § 100-a, [requiring competitive bidding]) attests to this. The very amendments of which plaintiffs complain, though they do not treat all counties alike, unquestionably affect the State as a whole.  Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc…v Smith…, No 101, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

, ,

8-Hour Break in 49 ½ Hour Interrogation Did Not Render Confession Voluntary

In a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined an 8-hour break and the presence of counsel, after a 491/2-hour custodial interrogation, did not render his confession to murder voluntary and reversed his conviction:

We are unwilling to draw the inference, which the People would have us make, that the eight-hour “break” between interrogation and arraignment attenuated the taint of the wrongful interrogation. Defendant’s pre- and post-arraignment statements were, despite their temporal separation, in all other ways seamlessly linked. At the end of the marathon session, the utterly spent defendant, in exchange for a lawyer to which he was absolutely entitled, agreed in a statement ultimately suppressed as coerced, to “give everybody what they want,” and when he returned to the Blue Room on the morning of the same day and faced the same interrogator across the same table, that is exactly what he did. We do not accept the hypothesis that his intervening stay in a holding pen and arraignment on the charge of murder sufficed to transform his coerced capitulation into a voluntary disclosure. By the time of defendant’s post-arraignment statements, his options would have seemed so constricted, by what he had already divulged during the earlier portion of the interrogation, as to render the intervening temporal buffer practically irrelevant. …

…[W]e reject the contention that the entry of counsel guaranteed the voluntariness of defendant’s subsequent statements …. This contention misconstrues the statement in Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) that “[t]he presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self incrimination]. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion” (id. at 466 [emphasis supplied]). Plainly, this language, expressly limited in its reference, was not intended to stand for the proposition that the presence of counsel will invariably be adequate as an assurance of voluntariness.  People v Guilford, No 103, CtApp, 6-4-13

SUPPRESSION

 

 

,

Retroactive Tax Credit Restrictions Violated Due Process

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, determined that the retroactive changes in the Empire Zones Program (restricting the availability of tax credits) did not, as the appellate divisions held, violate the Takings Clause, but did violate the Due Process Clause:  The Court wrote:

The purported taking here is plaintiffs’ obligation to pay tax to the State in the absence of a valid tax credit. However, “[t]he mere imposition of an obligation to pay money . . . does not give rise to a claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment” …. Federal courts have held that “[f]or retroactive taxation to be a taking, it must be ‘so arbitrary as to constrain to the conclusion that it was not the exertion of taxation'”…. The retroactive tax liability imposed in the present case cannot be characterized as so flagrant as to constitute the confiscation of property under the Takings Clause. Plaintiffs had no guarantee that they would ever recoup their business investments through the receipt of tax credits, and the New York Constitution provides that tax exemptions are freely repealable (NY Const, art XVI, § 1).  *  *  *

We now turn to that other question: whether plaintiffs’ due process rights were infringed by the statute utilizing the three factors articulated in Replan. In terms of “the taxpayer’s forewarning of a change in the legislation and the reasonableness of his reliance on the old law” (Replan, 70 NY2d at 456), the plaintiffs had no warning and no opportunity at anytime in 2008 to alter their behavior in anticipation of the impact of the 2009 Amendments. * * *The second factor, the length of the period of retroactivity, also benefits plaintiffs. * * * Regardless of whether the period of retroactivity is deemed to span 16 or 32 months, the length of retroactivity should be considered excessive and weighs against the State. * * *   On the third factor, dispositive in this case, the State fails to set forth a valid public purpose for the retroactive application of the 2009 Amendments. The legislature did not have an important public purpose to make the law retroactive.  James Square Associates LP et al v Mullen …, Nos 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, CtApp, 6-4-13

 

,

Trial Judge Can Rescind Mistrial Declaration; Retrial Okay Where Defendant Consents to Mistrial​

The Second Department determined that a trial judge can rescind a mistrial declaration and noted that a mistrial granted with the consent of the defendant does not bar retrial:

When a mistrial is declared in a criminal case without the consent, or over the objection, of the defendant, the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in section 6 of article I of the New York Constitution precludes a retrial for the same offense unless ” there is a manifest necessity for [the mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated'”…. Conversely, when a defendant requests or consents to a mistrial, double jeopardy typically does not bar a retrial ….

The mere declaration of a mistrial does not terminate a criminal trial and thereby divest the trial court of the authority to rescind the declaration…. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the District Court did not retain the discretion to rescind its previous declaration of a mistrial prior to the discharge of the jury. Moreover, the District Court’s initial declaration of a mistrial, made without the petitioner’s consent, was rescinded and, thereafter, a mistrial was declared upon the petitioner’s consent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition to the extent that it did, and in barring a retrial of the petitioner on the ground of double jeopardy. Matter of Gorman v Rice, 2013 NY Slip Op 03673, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

,

New York City Administrative Code Imposing a $2000 Fine for Removal Recyclable Material from Curb Violated Excessive-Fines Clauses​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, the First Department determined the New York City Administrative Code provision which imposed a $2000 fine for the removal of recyclable material from the curb violated the Eighth Amendment as applied.  The code provision was designed to prevent large scale removal of recyclable material which deprived the City of recycling income. The petitioner was an artist who used recyclable material in his work.  He picked up a television antenna which had been put out on the curb.  He was pulled over by the NYC sanitation police, given a summons mandating a $2000 fine, and his vehicle was seized.  The First Department wrote:

It is undisputed that petitioner violated the relevant Administrative Code provision—he removed and transported a recyclable object using a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, under the specific circumstances here, we conclude that the mandatory $2,000 penalty amounts to an unconstitutionally excessive fine. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids the imposition of “excessive fines.” The New York State Constitution contains the same prohibition (art I, § 5). The Excessive Fines Clause ” limits the government’s power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense””… . A fine is unconstitutionally excessive if it “notably exceeds in amount that which is reasonable, usual, proper or just” …. Thus, the Excessive Fines Clause is violated where the fine is “grossly disproportional to the gravity of [the] offense”… . Matter of Prince v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03623, 1st Dept, 5-21-1

 

, ,

Trial Court’s Refusal to Allow Defense Witness to Be Called Required Reversal 

The Fourth Department (over two dissents) reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because the defense was precluded from calling a witness.  The prosecution’s theory was that the defendant committed robbery, assault and burglary against the victim in retaliation for the victim’s informing the police defendant was growing marijuana in his house. It was anticipated the witness the defense was not allowed to call would testify that defendant accused him (the witness) of being the informant but did not assault or threaten him.  The Fourth Department explained:

It is well settled that “a defendant’s ‘right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense . . . is a fundamental element of due process of law’ ” …In fact, “[f]ew rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his [or her] own defense” …Thus, the testimony of a defense witness should not be prospectively excluded unless the offer of such proof is palpably in bad faith …. Instead, courts upon proper objection should “rule on the admissibility of the evidence offered” …. Here, the People do not suggest that the testimony of the proposed witness was offered in bad faith, and the court did not make such a finding at trial. Indeed, there is no basis in the record for concluding that the offer of proof was palpably in bad faith. The court therefore should have allowed the proposed witness to testify, whereupon the prosecutor could object to any testimony she deemed inadmissible or improper.  People v Arena, KA 12-01632, 179, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE

, ,

Department of Corrections Has Right to Force-Feed Inmate on Hunger Strike

The Court of Appeals determined that the state has the right to force-feed an inmate (Dorsey) who is on a hunger strike, once the inmate’s life is in jeopardy.  The opinion by Judge Graffeo is lengthy and deals with preservation requirements, the mootness doctrine, as well as the constitutional rights implicated in the refusal of medical care.  Judge Lippman dissented, addressing primarily his view that the issues discussed on appeal had not been preserved and the “exception to mootness” doctrine had been misapplied.  Judge Graffeo wrote:

It is therefore evident that DOCCS’ decision to intervene when Dorsey’s hunger strike progressed to the point that his life was in jeopardy was reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives. Taking action to interrupt an inmate hunger strike not only serves to preserve life and prevent a suicide but also to maintain institutional order and security. There was no way that DOCCS could effectuate these interests other than to seek a judicial order permitting feeding by nasogastric tube — less intrusive means had been attempted without success. Dorsey had been moved to the infirmary and medical staff within the facility had repeatedly counseled him in an attempt to get him to voluntarily abandon the hunger strike (as he had done before) to no avail. Matter of Bezio v Dorsey, No 65, CtApp, 5-2-13

 

,

Criteria for Preemption by Martin Act

The Second Department noted the criteria for preemption of state law by the Martin Act:

…[T]he Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it is preempted by the Martin Act (see General Business Law art 23-A). Since the plaintiff’s common-law causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and derivative declaratory judgment causes of action are not “predicated solely on a violation of the Martin Act or its implementing regulations,” they are not preempted by the Martin Act … .  Meadowbrook Farms Homeowners Assn, Inc v JZG Resources Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02381, 2011-089/10, Index No 839/10, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

 

,

Action Under Labor Law Based On Injury On a Ship in Dry-Dock Not Preempted by Federal Maritime Law

A worker on a ship in dry-dock was injured when he fell through an open hole in the floor or deck.  He brought an action pursuant to the Labor Law.  Although the action was within the jurisdiction of federal maritime law, the Second Department held that the state labor law claims were not preempted by general maritime law:

…[T]here is no real dispute that the present action falls within federal maritime jurisdiction … . Contrary to the contention of the defendants third-party plaintiffs, however, the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) are not preempted by general maritime law. Under the circumstances of this case, the application of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), which are local regulations enacted to protect the health and safety of workers in this state, will not unduly interfere with a fundamental characteristic of maritime law or the free flow of maritime commerce … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the cross motion of the defendants third-party plaintiffs which was for summary judgment dismissing those causes of action insofar as asserted against the City. Durando v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 02214, 2012-00535, Index No 33753/08, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy