You are here: / Constitutional Law
,

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

 

,

Internet Tax Held Constitutional

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined the Internet Tax (Tax Law 1101(b)(8)(vi) was constitutional on its face and did not violate either the Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause.  The plaintiffs in the action, Overstock.com and Amazon.com, sued the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.  The activities found to be legitimately taxable in New York were described by the Court as follows:

Amazon offers an “Associates Program” through which third parties agree to place links on their own websites that, when clicked, direct users to Amazon’s website. The Associates are compensated on a commission basis. They receive a percentage of the revenue from sales generated when a customer clicks on the Associate’s link and completes a purchase from the Amazon site. The operating agreement governing this arrangement states that the Associates are independent contractors and that there is no employment relationship between the parties. Thousands of entities enrolled in the Associates Program have provided a New York address in connection with their applications.

Plaintiff Overstock.com is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Utah. Overstock likewise sells its merchandise solely through the Internet and does not maintain any office, employees or property in New York. Similar to Amazon, Overstock had an “Affiliates” program through which third parties would place links for Overstock.com on their own websites. When a customer clicked on the link, he or she was immediately directed to Overstock.com, and if the customer completed a purchase, the Affiliate received a commission. According to the parties’ Master Agreement, the Affliates were independent contractors without the authority to obligate or bind Overstock.

Judge Smith dissented and would have found the statute unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.  Overstock.com, et al, v NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, et al, 33, CtApp 3-28-13

 

 

, , , ,

Religious Holidays in Teachers’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Violate the Establishment Clause 

A provision in a collective bargaining agreement that allowed teachers to take up to five religious holidays as paid days off was deemed unconstitutional by the Second Department:

“There is no firmer or more settled principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence than that prohibiting the use of the State’s power to force one to profess a religious belief” … . Here, the clear wording of the religious holidays provision rewarded members of the Association who claimed to be religiously observant with more paid days off than those afforded to agnostics, atheists, and members who were less observant. As a result, the religious holidays provision violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution … .   Matter of Board of Educ … v Mineola Teachers Assn, 2013 NY Slip Op 02070, 2011-11373, Index No 7359/11, 2nd Dept 3-27-13

 

,

17-Year Pre-Indictment Delay Did Not Violate Right to Speedy Trial

A 17-year pre-indictment delay did not violate defendant’s right to a speedy trial.  The Fourth Department wrote:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), defendant contends that the 17-year preindictment delay violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.We reject that contention. In examining the Taranovich factors (People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445), we conclude that, although the 17-year preindictment delay was substantial, the nature of the charge was serious, and defendant remained at liberty until he was indicted. Moreover, the People met their burden of establishing a good-faith basis for the delay (see People v Decker, 13 NY3d 12, 14-16; People v Chatt, 77 AD3d 1285, 1285, lv denied 17 NY3d 793). In particular, they established that there was insufficient evidence to charge defendant shortly after the crimes occurred, and it was not until a witness gave new information to the police that identified defendant as the perpetrator and DNA testing was completed that the People brought the charges against defendant. While the delay may have caused some degree of prejudice to defendant, “ ‘a determination made in good faith to delay prosecution for sufficient reasons will not deprive defendant of due process even though there may be some prejudice to defendant’ ” (Decker, 13 NY3d at 14).  People v Gaston, 176, KA 11-00406, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

, ,

Taser or Stun Gun Is Not a “Dangerous Instrument” for Purposes of Burglary and Menacing Statutes; Court Must Articulate Specific Reasons for Shackling Defendant During Trial

Proof that the defendant threatened the complainant with a taser or stun gun was legally insufficient to establish the “dangerous instrument” element of burglary in the first degree and menacing in the second degree.  Although the Second Department determined it was harmless error, the Court also noted that it was error to shackle the defendant and put black bunting around the defense table, without also putting black bunting around the prosecution table. The jury, in that circumstance, may have inferred the bunting was designed to hide shackles.  “The federal constitution ‘forbids the use of visible shackles … unless that use is justified by an essential state interest … specific to the defendant on trial’ …”.  County Court, in this instance, failed to articulate on the record an adequate justification individualized to the defendant for the shackling … .  People v Morillo, 2013 NY Slip Op 01572, 2010-11438, Ind No 2052/09, 2nd Dept. 5-13-13

 

, ,

Guilty Plea Precludes Appeal of Statutory Speedy Trial Violation But Not Constitutional Speedy Trial Violation

By pleading guilty a defendant forfeits appellate review of a claim that his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 30.30 was violated. However, a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial claim survives both a guilty plea and a waiver of the right to appeal. People v Franco, 2013 NY Slip Op 01570, 2009-10119, Ind No 10795/07, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

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