You are here: / Constitutional Law
,

Local Law Purporting to Limit Term of County District Attorney Preempted by New York Constitution and State Law

The Second Department determined that the local law which limited the term of the county district attorney to 12 years was preempted by the New York Constitution and state law, thereby allowing the sitting district attorney (who had served for 12 years) to run for another term.  The court reasoned:

…[T]he County’s attempt to place a term limit on the office of District Attorney is impermissible. Since the office of District Attorney is not a local office falling within the ambit of NY Const, article IX, § 2(c)(1) or Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (1)(ii)(a), the County had no authority to place restrictions on the District Attorney’s terms of office. Further, even if the District Attorney is a local office falling within NY Const, article IX, § 2(c)(1) and Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a), the New York Constitution and state law, together, so expansively and comprehensively regulate the office, that a county government’s ability to place restrictions on a District Attorney’s terms of office has been preempted. *  *  *

Pursuant to the maxim of statutory construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” “where a law expressly describes a particular act, thing or person to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240…). Here, in light of the fact that the New York Constitution and state law speak to the duration and term of office of the District Attorney, there is an irrefutable inference that the imposition of any limit on the duration of that office was intended to be omitted or excluded (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240…). Indeed, regarding County Court judges, the New York Constitution provides for a 10-year term (see NY Const, art VI, § 10[b]) and a maximum duration to age 70 (see NY Const, art VI, § 25[b]). That the Constitution imposed a durational limit on County Court judges, but not on District Attorneys, who are also “constitutional officers,” indicates that the omission was intentional and that it was intended that there be no durational limit on District Attorneys. Matter of Hoerger v Spota, 2013 NY slip Op 05661, 2nd Dept 8-16-13

 

, , ,

Although Arbitrator in Statutorily-Required Arbitration Proceeding Properly Found Teacher Engaged in Misconduct, Teacher’s Actions Were Protected by First Amendment

Teachers demonstrated in front of a school while negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were on-going.  On a rainy day, some teachers parked their cars in front of the school, displaying signs inside the cars.  Because the teachers were parked where children are usually dropped off by their parents, children were being dropped off in the street. The board of education brought a disciplinary charge against petitioner pursuant to Education Law 3020-a alleging the creation of a health and safety risk.  The matter went to statutorily-required arbitration and the arbitrator found the petitioner had created a health and safety risk.  Petitioner challenged the ruling in this Article 78 proceeding. The Second Department explained the court’s role in reviewing a statutorily-required arbitration, found that the arbitrator’s ruling was supported by the evidence, but determined petitioner’s activity was protected by the First Amendment:

Where, as here, arbitration is statutorily required, “judicial review under CPLR article 75 is broad, requiring that the award be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence in the record” … . “The award must also be rational and satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standards of CPLR article 78” … . “Due process of law requires . . . that the [arbitrator’s determination] under the power conferred by statute have a basis not only in his good faith, but in law and the record before him [or her]” … . … In this proceeding… the evidence at the hearing provided a rational basis for the arbitrator’s decision, and the award was not arbitrary and capricious … .Nonetheless, we hold …that the petition should have been granted. The petitioner’s expressive activity regarding collective bargaining issues indisputably addressed matters of public concern …, and the District failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the petitioner’s exercise of her First Amendment rights so threatened the school’s effective operation as to justify the imposition of discipline… .  Matter of Lucia v Board of Educ of E Meadow Union Free Sch Dist, 2013 NY Slip Op 05633, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

,

40 Month Pre-Trial Delay Did Not Violate Due Process

In determining a 40-month delay did not deprive defendant his right to due process, the Fourth Department wrote:

In determining whether there has been an undue delay, a court must consider several factors, including “ ‘(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay’ ” (People v Decker, 13 NY3d 12, 15, quoting People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445…).

Upon applying the Taranovich factors to the facts before us, we conclude that the delay did not deprive defendant of his right to due process.  We agree with defendant that the rape in the first degree charge “can only be described as serious” … .  Conversely, although the 40-month delay in commencing the prosecution was substantial, it was not per se unreasonable ….  Furthermore, defendant was not incarcerated for an extended period prior to the trial on these charges, and there is no evidence that defendant was prejudiced by the delay in commencing the prosecution.  Finally, the reason for the delay in this case was the police detective’s inability to fully identify and locate defendant.  That excuse was not unreasonable inasmuch as the victim was unable to identify defendant from mug shots or otherwise ascertain which of the 32 men in the Buffalo Police Department’s identification system with defendant’s name was the perpetrator. People v White, 817, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

, ,

DNA Evidence Not Testimonial—No Denial of Right to Confrontation

In affirming defendant’s conviction, the Second Department noted that DNA evidence did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation because the challenged evidence was not testimonial:

[Defendant’s] right of confrontation (see US Const Sixth Amend) was not violated when an expert testified that a DNA profile produced by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (hereinafter OCME) from a sample of the decedent’s blood matched a DNA profile produced by the OCME from a sample of a stain on a pair of jeans given to the office by the police department. The DNA profiles were not testimonial …, but rather, were merely raw data that, standing alone, did not link the defendant to the crime… . The connection of the defendant to the crime was made by the testimony of police officers establishing that the defendant was wearing the subject jeans when arrested, and of the DNA expert, who testified that, based on his analysis, the two subject DNA profiles matched…. People v Pitre, 2013 NY slip Op 05231, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

, ,

References to Fingerprint Evidence Processed by Non-testifying Technician Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation

In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by latent fingerprint evidence processed by a technician who did not testify, the Fourth Department explained:

The technician who processed and photographed the fingerprint did not compare the latent print to the fingerprints of defendant or any other suspect. Thus, the technician’s findings were not testimonial because the latent fingerprint, “standing alone, shed[s] no light on the guilt of the accused in the absence of an expert’s opinion that the [latent fingerprint] match[es] a known sample”… .Moreover, the analyst who determined that the latent print matched one of defendant’s fingerprints in fact testified at trial and was available for cross-examination.    Therefore, defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him was not violated… .  People v Jackson, 645, 4th Dept 7-5-13

TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY

 

, ,

Action Seeking to Enjoin Closure of Charter School Dismissed

Plaintiffs brought an action for injunctive relief against the Board of Regents which had denied the application of plaintiff Pinnacle Charter School to renew its charter. Supreme Court had granted a preliminary injunction and dismissed one cause of action. The Fourth Department reversed the preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint entirely, including the causes of action alleging a violation of due process and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act:

The first and second causes of action allege, respectively, that the determination of the Board of Regents violated Pinnacle’s due process rights under the State Constitution (NY Const, art I, § 6) and the Federal Constitution (US Const, 14th Amend, § 1). We agree with defendants that the New York Charter Schools Act (Education Law art 56) creates no constitutionally protected property interest in the renewal of a charter and thus that the first and second causes of action fail to state a cause of action… * * *

…[W]e agree with defendants that the Board of Regents was acting pursuant to its discretionary authority when it denied Pinnacle’s renewal application, and it was not required to promulgate any rules pursuant to article 2 of the State Administrative Procedure Act with respect to its exercise of such authority… .  Pinnacle Charter School, et al v Board of Regents, et al, 432, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

, ,

Right of Confrontation Not Violated by Results of Tests by Persons Who Were Not Called as Witnesses

In determining defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated by evidence of DNA testing:

The court properly admitted files prepared by the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office containing DNA profiles derived from the testing of evidence recovered from the crime scenes, since the documents containing the DNA profiles, which were prepared prior to the defendant’s arrest, “did not, standing alone, link [him] to the crime” …. The testimony of the People’s expert witness established that she conducted the critical analysis at issue by comparing the DNA profiles derived from the crime scene evidence to the defendant’s DNA profile and concluding that all of the profiles matched…. Moreover, the DNA profile generated from the swab of the defendant’s cheek, standing alone, shed no light on the issue of the defendant’s guilt in the absence of the expert’s testimony that it matched the profiles derived from the crime scene evidence….  People v Washington, 2013 NY Slip Op 05096, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY

 

, ,

Judge’s Mistrial Order Precluded Retrial—Double Jeopardy

In precluding a retrial on double jeopardy grounds after the trial judge ordered a mistrial over defendant’s objection (granting the Article 78 prohibition petition), the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

In a jury trial, once the jury is empaneled and sworn, jeopardy attaches (see CPL 40.30[1][b];..), and the defendant has a “valued right to have his [or her] trial completed by a particular tribunal” ….  ” [W]hen 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 granting a mistrial are deemed actual and substantial, the court must explore all appropriate alternatives prior to granting a mistrial'”…. Mistrials premised on the prejudicial effect of improper evidence or argument are entitled to “great deference” …, since “the Trial Judge, better than any other, . . . can detect the ambience of partiality”…. Nonetheless, the trial judge must “temper the decision whether or not to abort the trial by considering the importance to the defendant of being able, once and for all, to conclude his [or her] confrontation with society through the verdict of a tribunal he [or she] might believe to be favorably disposed to his [or her] fate” … . Matter of Taylor v Dowling, 2013 NY Slip Op 05089, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

, , ,

STATE’S USE OF A GPS DEVICE TO TRACK STATE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT, BUT THE SEARCH WAS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE ALL OF THE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS, EVEN WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WAS ON VACATION, WERE TRACKED, THE GPS EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a three-judge concurrence, determined the evidence obtained about a state employee’s movements by placing a GPS device on the employee’s car should have been suppressed in the Labor Department’s hearing (after which the employee was terminated). The Court of Appeals found that the use of the GPS device did not require a warrant, but the search in this case was unreasonable in scope:

The State of New York, suspecting that one of its employees was submitting false time reports, attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to the employee’s car. Under People v Weaver (12 NY3d 433 [2009]) and United States v Jones (565 US —, 132 S Ct 945 [2012]), the State’s action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions. We hold that the search did not require a warrant, but that on the facts of this case it was unreasonable. * * *

While the search did not require a warrant, it did not comply with either the State or Federal Constitution unless it was a reasonable search. We conclude that the State has failed to demonstrate that this search was reasonable. * * *

Where an employer conducts a GPS search without making a reasonable effort to avoid tracking an employee outside of business hours, the search as a whole must be considered unreasonable. That conclusion concededly requires suppression of the GPS evidence here; the State has disclaimed any reliance on the balancing test that we use when deciding whether to invoke the suppression remedy in administrative proceedings .. . . Matter of Cunningham v New York State Dept. of Labor,
2013 NY Slip Op 04838 [21 NY3d 515], CtApp 6-27-13

 

,

Closure of Railroad Crossing Did Not Constitute a Taking of Claimant’s Land

The Court of Appeals determined the closure of a railroad crossing did not constitute a regulatory taking of claimant’s land.  Claimant used the crossing to move equipment from one part of his land to another:

The basis for the claim is that the State Department of Transportation required the closure of a railroad crossing that claimant had used to move equipment from one part of its land to another. The record shows that the Department ordered the closure after it determined that the crossing presented a safety hazard. It found that fast moving trains passed by frequently; that a curve in the tracks limited the distance at which a train could be seen from the crossing; that heavy, slow-moving farm equipment was being transported over the tracks; and that there was a substantial grade at the approaches to the crossing, which made it necessary for crossing vehicles to reduce their speed. In an article 78 proceeding brought by claimant, the Department’s determination was upheld as being supported by substantial evidence….

On this record, the conclusion is inescapable that the closure of the crossing was a proper exercise of the State’s police power. Moreover, claimant has failed to show the extent to which the Department’s action diminished the value of its land, and has not argued that its easement to cross the railroad tracks should be treated for these purposes as an item of property separate from the land itself. Claimant’s claim of a regulatory taking is without merit.  Island Park, LLC v State of New York, No 132, CtApp 6-26-13

 

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy