You are here: / Constitutional Law
,

Aggravated Harassment Statute Unconstitutionally Vague and Overbroad/Criminal Impersonation Statute Encompasses Injury to Reputation

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a partial dissent, the Court of Appeals found the aggravated harassment statute unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and determined the “injury” contemplated by the criminal impersonation (second degree) statute encompassed injury to reputation.  The defendant's father is a “Dead Sea Scrolls” scholar.  The defendant engaged in an email campaign in which he created emails which purported to be from other “Dead Sea Scrolls” scholars and which had the effect of promoting his father's positions.  The defendant was convicted of criminal impersonation, aggravated harassment, identity theft, forgery and unauthorized use of a computer.  Ultimately the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for nine counts of criminal impersonation and the forgery counts.  With respect to harassment and criminal impersonation, the court wrote:

A person is guilty [of criminal impersonation in the second degree] when he or she “impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another” (Penal Law § 190.25).  * * *

…[W]e conclude that injury to reputation is within the “injury” contemplated by Penal Law § 190.25. Many people, particularly with a career in academia, as relevant to this case, value their reputations at least as much as their property,[FN2] and we believe the Legislature intended that the scope of the statute be broad enough [*7]to capture acts intended to cause injury to reputation.

Accordingly, a person may be found guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree if he or she impersonates another with the intent to cause a tangible, pecuniary injury to another, or the intent to interfere with governmental operations … . In addition, a person who impersonates someone with the intent to harm the reputation of another may be found guilty of this crime.

Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a) provides that “[a] person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she . . . communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.” We agree with defendant that this statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad … .

In People v Dietze (75 NY2d 47 [1989]), this Court struck down a similar harassment statute, former Penal Law § 240.25, which prohibited the use of abusive or obscene language with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person. We determined that the statute [*8]was unconstitutional under both the State and Federal Constitutions, noting that “any proscription of pure speech must be sharply limited to words which, by their utterance alone, inflict injury or tend naturally to evoke immediate violence” (id. at 52).

The reasoning applied in Dietze applies equally to our analysis of Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a). The statute criminalizes, in broad strokes, any communication that has the intent to annoy. Like the harassment statute at issue in Dietze, “no fair reading” of this statute's “unqualified terms supports or even suggests the constitutionally necessary limitations on its scope” … . People v Golb, 2014 NY Slip Op 03426, CtApp 5-13-14

 

, ,

Low-Income Families’ Challenges to Child Care Copayment Regulation Rejected

The Fourth Department rejected challenges to a copayment regulation by low-income families who are eligible for child care assistance but who are required to pay more than 10% of their gross incomes for the care.  The families alleged that the co-payment regulation, 18 NYCRR 415.3 (e), violated Social Services Law 410-x because it did not provide for a single sliding fee scale, the existing sliding fee scales are not based upon the family’s ability to pay, and the regulation failed to provide equitable access to child care as required by statute.  The families further alleged the copayment regulation violated the families’ right to travel within the state and their right to equal protection of the law.  With respect to the sliding scale aspect of the argument, the court wrote:

Plaintiffs …contend that the copayment regulation violates Social Services Law § 410-x (6) because it does not provide for a single sliding fee scale, as required by statute, and instead allows each of the 58 social services districts to set its own sliding fee scale. We reject that contention as well. “It is well settled that the Legislature may authorize an administrative agency to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation’ ” … . “In so doing, an agency can adopt regulations that go beyond the text of that legislation, provided they are not inconsistent with the statutory language or its underlying purposes” … . An agency’s interpretation of a governing statute will not be disturbed unless it is unreasonable or irrational … .

Here, section 410-x (6) delegates regulatory authority to the Office of Children and Family Services, of which defendant is Commissioner, by providing that, “[p]ursuant to department regulations, child care assistance shall be provided on a sliding fee basis based on the family’s ability to pay.” The statute does not expressly require defendant to adopt a single state-wide sliding fee scale, and we do not consider it unreasonable or irrational for defendant to adopt a regulation that gives flexibility to social services districts to choose a multiplier between 10% and 35% to use in calculating an eligible family’s share of child care costs. Williams v Carrion, 2014 NY Slip Op 03044, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

,

Temporary Restraining Order Prohibiting Broadcast About a Murder of Which Plaintiff Was Convicted Constituted Impermissible Prior Restraint of Speech

The Third Department determined the temporary restraining order granted by Supreme Court, which prohibited the broadcast of a movie about a murder of which plaintiff was convicted, constituted an impermissible prior restraint of free speech:

“A ‘prior restraint’ on speech is ‘a law, regulation or judicial order that suppresses speech . . . on the basis of the speech’s content and in advance of its actual expression'” … . It is well settled that “prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights” … . As explained by the United States Supreme Court, “a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them . . . beforehand. It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable” … . Although the prohibition against prior restraint is not absolute, any restraint on speech comes with “a ‘heavy presumption’ against its constitutional validity” … . Censorship in advance of publication will be constitutionally tolerated only upon “a showing on the record that such expression will immediately and irreparably create public injury” … .

Plaintiff has failed to show such immediate and irreparable public harm. “Romeo Killer: The Christopher Porco Story” purports to depict the events leading up to and surrounding plaintiff’s murder trial, a matter of significant public interest. Its broadcast would not create the type of imminent and irreversible injury to the public that would warrant the extraordinary remedy of prior restraint. Rather, any alleged harm or injury flowing from the content of the film would be limited to plaintiff alone. That portions of the movie may be fictionalized, dramatized or embellished does not constitute a sufficient basis for the imposition of a prior restraint enjoining its broadcast … . While judicial redress following publication is available if it is ultimately proven that defendant abused its rights of speech, it was constitutionally impermissible under these circumstances to forbid that speech prior to its actual expression… . Porco v Lifetime Entertainment Servs LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02641, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

, , ,

Code Provision Requiring Issuance of Rental Certificate by City Prior to Leasing an Apartment Deemed Constitutional

The Third Department determined the code provision (Rental Certificate Ordinance or RCO) which required the issuance a rental certificate each time a vacant apartment is about to be leased is constitutional.  Entry to the apartment is accomplished either with the consent of the owner, or upon the issuance of a search warrant:

The RCO provided, in relevant part, that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any owner to permit the occupancy of any rental unit subject to [former article X of the Code of the City of Schenectady], unless such unit has a current and valid rental certificate or temporary rental certificate” (Code of City of Schenectady former § 167-59 [A]). Thus, “[w]henever a vacancy shall exist in a rental unit and a leasing is about to occur, or whenever there is a change in occupancy, the owner [must] submit a written application for a rental certificate” (Code of City of Schenectady former § 167-60 [A] [1]) and, “within five working days of receipt of [such] application, the Building Inspector [must] inspect the rental unit to determine if [it] is in compliance with” certain enumerated housing standards (Code of City of Schenectady former § 167-60 [A] [2]). If the Building Inspector is unable to perform the necessary inspection within the five-day window, the property owner may apply for a temporary rental certificate, which “is valid for 30 days or until the unit is inspected . . . , whichever is less” (Code of the City of Schenectady former § 167-60 [B]). In the event that the property owner refuses to grant access to the premises, “the Building Inspector shall apply for a search warrant or court order in an appropriate court and upon a showing that there [are] reasonable grounds to believe that a building or rental unit within [the] building is rented and occupied in violation of” the RCO (Code of the City of Schenectady former § 167-61). A property owner’s violation of the RCO may result in the imposition of a fine or other civil or criminal penalties (see Code of the City of Schenectady former § 167-67).

“It is well established that the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to administrative inspections of private commercial premises. [Thus,] to the extent that the challenged ordinance directly or in practical effect authorizes or requires a warrantless inspection, it will not pass constitutional muster” … . Here, however, the RCO expressly required either the consent of the property owner or the issuance of a valid search warrant in order for the Building Inspector to conduct the administrative inspection. As the inclusion of the warrant requirement is sufficient to safeguard plaintiff’s constitutional rights, his challenge to the facial validity of the RCO must fail … . Wisoff v City of Schenectady, 2014 NY Slip Op 02479, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

, ,

Tax Law Amendment Allowing New York to Collect Capital Gains Tax from a Nonresident Shareholder in an S Corporation Should Not Have Been Applied Retroactively to a Transaction Which Took Place Three and a Half Years Before the Amendment

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, over a dissenting opinion, the First Department determined an amendment to the tax law should not be applied retroactively.  The amendment allowed New York to collect capital gains tax from a nonresident shareholder in an S corporation which has distributed an installment obligation under section 453 (h)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code:

Determining whether the retroactive application of a tax statute violates a taxpayer’s due process rights “is a question of degree” and “requir[es] a balancing of [the] equities”… . In James Sq. [21 NY3d 233], the Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed a three-prong test to determine whether the retroactive application of a tax statute passes constitutional muster. “The important factors in determining whether a retroactive tax transgresses the constitutional limitation are (1) the taxpayer’s forewarning of a change in the legislation and the reasonableness of . . . reliance on the old law,’ (2) the length of the retroactive period,’ and 3) the public purpose for retroactive application'”… .

…[P]laintiffs had “no warning and no opportunity [in 2007] to alter their behavior in anticipation of the impact of the [2010 amendment]”…. . * * *

In James Sq., the Court concluded that a retroactive period of 16 months “should be considered excessive and weighs against the State” (21 NY3d at 249). Here, the period of retroactivity was 3 1/2 years — nearly three times longer than the period found excessive in James Sq. As in James Sq., we conclude that this excessive period was “long enough . . . so that plaintiffs gained a reasonable expectation that they would secure repose in the existing tax scheme” … . * * *

The legislative history indicates that enactment of the legislation was necessary to implement the 2010-2011 executive budget by raising tax revenues by $30 million in that fiscal year. Indeed, defendants expressly state in their brief that the legislature made the law retroactive to prevent revenue loss. But “raising money for the state budget is not a particularly compelling justification” and “is insufficient to warrant retroactivity in a case [as here] where the other factors militate against it” (James Sq., 21 NY3d at 250). Caprio v New York State Dept of Taxation & Finance, 2014 NY Slip Op 02399l 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

,

Because Defendant’s Resentence to Remedy the Failure to Impose a Period of Post-Release Supervision Was On Appeal, Defendant Had Not Acquired a Legitimate Expectation of Finality in His Sentence such that the Double Jeopardy Clause Was Implicated

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined, under the facts, the imposition of a period of post-release supervision [PRS] after defendant completed his sentence (which was illegal because it did not include a period of post-release supervision) did not violate the Double Jeopardy clause.  Because the resentence was being appealed, the defendant had not yet “acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence:”

Defendant … moved to vacate his conviction under Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.10. Supreme Court denied the motion to vacate the conviction. The court nevertheless noted that defendant's sentence was illegal because it did not include the mandatory term of PRS … and ordered that defendant be resentenced. Defendant was conditionally released in May 2008. One month later, Supreme Court resentenced defendant to the original concurrent terms of imprisonment, as well as a five-year term of PRS. In October 2009, the maximum term of his prison sentence passed.   * * *

The protection against multiple punishments protects defendants from having their sentences increased once they have acquired “legitimate expectations of finality” therein (Williams, 14 NY3d at 214). We explained in Williams that a defendant may acquire a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence only once “the direct appeal has been completed (or the time to appeal has expired)” and the sentence has been served (id. at 217).

In Velez [19 NY3d 642] , we addressed whether a defendant acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence where a resentencing proceeding had been instituted but the term of PRS had not yet been imposed prior to the expiration of the sentence. We held that the defendant … acquired a legitimate expectation of finality (19 NY3d at 650). In this case, defendant has served his sentence, but the direct appeal of that sentence is not over; it presently is before us. Consequently, defendant has not acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence.  People v Cintron, 35, CtApp 3-27-14

 

,

Conditioning Co-Defendant’s Plea on a Promise Not to Testify in Defendant’s Trial Is a Denial of the Right to Present a Defense

Although the Fourth Department affirmed defendant’s conviction, the court agreed with the defendant that the People improperly conditioned co-defendant’s plea upon his promise not to testify at defendant’s trial and threatened to increase the co-defendant’s sentence if he did testify.  The trial court eliminated the problem by permitting the co-defendant to testify without exposure to a more severe sentence:

We agree with defendant that it was improper for the People to condition the plea of a codefendant upon his promise not to testify at defendant’s trial and to threaten to increase the codefendant’s sentence should he violate that condition ….. As the United States Supreme Court wrote in Washington v Texas (388 US 14, 19), “[t]he right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he [or she] has the right to present his [or her] own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.” Thus, “substantial interference by the State with a defense witness’ free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process as surely as does a willful withholding of evidence” … . Here, however, defendant was not prejudiced by the improper plea condition inasmuch as the court granted his motion to permit the codefendant to testify on defendant’s behalf without exposure to a more severe sentence, and the court advised the codefendant of its ruling …. . People v Whitfield, 99, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

,

City-Judge Pay Disparity Justified by Population of Cities

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court finding that the pay disparity between City of Buffalo and City of Tonawanda judges, as set forth in Judiciary Law 221-i, was constitutional:

It is undisputed that the disparate judicial salary schedule set forth in Judiciary Law § 221-i does not implicate a suspect class or a fundamental right, and thus it is subject to the rational basis standard of review… . Such rational basis review “is a paradigm of judicial restraint” … . “A statute subject to rational basis scrutiny is presumed to be constitutional, and the party challenging the statute bears the heavy burden of proving that there is no reasonably conceivable state of facts which rationally supports the distinction” … . Thus, “the State has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification. A legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data” … .

Here, we conclude that there is a rational basis for the salary disparity between Tonawanda City Court and Buffalo City Court judges and, thus, that the disparity does not violate equal protection… . The cities of Buffalo and Tonawanda, although both located within Erie County and separated by only 12 miles, are very different municipalities. Buffalo is the largest city in Erie County and the second largest city in New York State. Tonawanda, by contrast, is “[o]ne of the smallest cities in Erie County.” Nearly one third of the residents of Erie County (28%) live in Buffalo, while only 1.5% of the county’s population resides in Tonawanda. In 2009, Buffalo’s population was 18 times the size of Tonawanda’s, i.e., 270,240 residents as compared to 14,766 residents. Tonawanda City Court has one full-time judge and one “half-time” judge, while Buffalo City Court has 13 full-time judges. Buffalo therefore has 20,787 residents per judge, which is more than twice the 9,844 residents per judge in Tonawanda.

We agree with defendants that it is rational for the State to pay a higher salary to judges who serve a larger population both as a proxy for caseload and as an indicator of potential future filings. Cassata v State of New York…, 183, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

, , , ,

Involuntary Mental Health Patient Should Not Have Been Released Pursuant to a Habeas Corpus Petition Without an “Examination Into the Patient’s Alleged Disability and Detention,” Despite the Hospital’s Untimely Request for Continued Detention (in Violation of the Mental Hygiene Law)/Appellate Court’s Ability to Hear a Moot Case Explained (Mootness Doctrine)

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that immediate release of an involuntaty patient from a mental health hospital pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus because of the facility’s failure to comply with the Mental Hygiene Law provisions for continued detention was reversible error.  Supreme Court should have conducted an examination into the patient’s alleged disability and detention.  The court discussed the nature and origin of the habeas corpus petition and the relationship between a habeas corpus petition brought under the Mental Hygiene Law and under Article 70 of the CPLR (finding them to be in essence the same). In addition, the Second Department discussed the mootness doctrine which, under certain circumtances, allows an appellate court to hear  a moot case.  The habeas corpus petition here had been rendered moot by the patient’s release:

Generally, courts are precluded “from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” …. . Typically, “an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . However, an exception to the mootness doctrine permits a court to review a case if the controversy or issue involved is likely to recur, typically evades review, and raises a substantial and novel question … .Here, the release of the patient renders this appeal academic. We nevertheless exercise our discretion to review the issues raised on this appeal pursuant to the exception to the mootness doctrine because the primary issue raised is an important one which implicates both the patient’s fundamental liberty interest and the State’s interest in protecting the mentally ill, and is one which is likely to recur. Further, the primary issue involved here may typically evade review because “[t]he Mental Hygiene Law contemplates that involuntary hospitalization in a mental health facility is often brief and temporary . . . [and the law] require[s] frequent periodic review of a patient’s status, and the release of the patient unless OMH is granted successive court orders authorizing retention” … . * * *

Here, the patient was initially involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 9 due to his alleged mental illness and, thereafter, the petition for a writ was filed on the patient’s behalf. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus was to determine whether the patient was being unlawfully detained (see CPLR 7002[a]… ). Therefore, in order to determine the cause and legality of the patient’s detention, the Supreme Court was required to examine the facts of the patient’s alleged mental disability and detention (see Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15[a], [b]; CPLR 7002). The Supreme Court’s failure to conduct the required examination constitutes reversible error. We note that the Hospital supported its untimely retention application with, inter alia, two certificates from the patient’s treating physicians. In those certificates, the physicians asserted that the patient was paranoid, unable to care for himself, and psychotic. Our determination should not be construed as an approval of the Hospital’s dilatory conduct in filing the retention application. There is no dispute that the Hospital failed to comply with Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33. Under the circumstances presented, however, the remedy for such noncompliance is not the immediate release of a patient. We also caution that our reasoning should not be construed to authorize an unlimited violation of article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law so as to allow a patient to be involuntarily retained, without a hearing, indefinitely. People v Munsey, 2014 NY Slip Op 01782, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

, ,

Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that a new trial was required because the prosecutor created the impression a non-testifying witness [Drake] had identified the defendant as the shooter.  Although the error was not preserved by objection, the court addressed the issue in the interest of justice.  The court noted as well that the defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s comments during summation (which reinforced the impression) were erroneously overruled:

Generally, during cross-examination, a party cannot introduce extrinsic evidence or call another witness to contradict a witness’s answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching such witness’s credibility … . As the defendant correctly contends, during the cross-examination of Lloyd, the prosecutor improperly gave the impression that Drake, who did not testify, implicated the defendant while the police questioned her … . Notably, the prosecutor acknowledged at the second trial that Drake had testified at the initial trial, and that Drake had not identified the defendant as having been present at the party.

The defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he [or she] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant ha[s] had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 53-54; see People v Pealer, 20 NY3d 447, 453, cert denied _____US_____, 134 S Ct 105). Here, the defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him was violated.  People v Lloyd, 2014 NY Slip Op 01631, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

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