You are here: / Constitutional Law
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A DIRECT APPEAL, AND DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO RAISE THE WINNING ARGUMENT IN THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT GRANTED DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO REMOVE THE SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION FROM HIS SENTENCE; THE OFFENSE OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED IS NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s judgment of conviction and reinstating it without the sex-offender certification, determined the offense of which defendant was convicted, burglary third degree as a sexually motivated felony, is not a registrable offense under the Correction Law. The court noted that a sex-offender certification is part of the sentence and therefore should have been challenged on direct appeal. Because an appeal is no longer possible, the court accepted the motion to vacate as an appropriate mechanism for correcting the error. Although the court rejected defendant’s “ineffective assistance of counsel” argument, it still granted the relief defendant sought on the constitutional ground that defendant has a “liberty interest” in not being misclassified as a sex offender:

Although defendant did not expressly raise such grounds in his motion, we note the People’s concession at oral argument that, in advocating that defendant pursue a different procedural course to obtain the requested relief, they do not oppose the ultimate result sought by defendant — the vacatur of the provisions of his judgment certifying him as a sex offender. * * * … [B]earing in mind that no party disputes that defendant should be afforded the discrete relief that he seeks in this proceeding and that defendant’s motion broadly seeks relief pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h), we believe it appropriate, in the interest of judicial economy, to address this matter now rather than require defendant to file a new motion asserting a different constitutional basis for the same relief. We therefore exercise our discretion, in the interest of justice, and grant defendant’s motion, vacate the judgment, and thereafter reinstate the judgment without the provisions thereof certifying defendant as a sex offender pursuant to SORA and requiring him to pay the $50 sex offender registration fee … . People v Richardson, 2025 NY Slip Op 01980, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here is a rare instance of an appellate court’s overlooking defendant’s failure to raise the sex-offender-misclassification issue on direct appeal and defendant’s failure to raise the winning constitutional argument in the motion to vacate the conviction. The reason? No one objected to the relief defendant sought, i.e. correction of the misclassification of the defendant as a sex offender. The objections were to the mechanism used to request the relief.

 

​

, , , ,

ISSUING A RULING BEFORE FATHER COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED THE PARTIES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge’s issuing a ruling awarding custody to father before father’s direct testimony had been completed violated due process:

The parties, as well as the attorney for the child, share the view that Family Court improperly ended the hearing before its completion, and we agree. At a hearing on an initial custody determination, due process requires that each party be provided a full and fair opportunity to be heard … . The parties must be permitted to present evidence on their own behalf and ” ‘cross-examine . . . key witness[es]’ ” … . Aside from due process considerations, a court’s “abrupt termination of the proceedings [may] preclude[ ] a meaningful best interests analysis, leaving the court . . . with insufficient information upon which to reach a reasoned conclusion” … .

Recognizing that this custody proceeding largely turned upon the credibility of the mother and the father, each of whom alleged that the other was an unfit parent, Family Court deprived both parties of a full and fair opportunity to be heard by inexplicably cutting off the father’s direct testimony and failing to allow any cross-examination of him. Further, given that the court granted the father sole legal and primary physical custody of the child in the face of the mother’s allegations that the father had committed numerous acts of domestic violence, including in front of the child, the court’s failure to allow cross-examination of the father deprived it of sufficient information to perform a meaningful best interests analysis … . Accordingly, we reverse and remit for a new fact-finding hearing … . Matter of Casey Q. v Jeffrey O., 2025 NY Slip Op 01981, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here in this child custody dispute, the judge issued a ruling awarding custody to father before father had completed his direct testimony. The premature ruling deprived the parties of due process of law.

 

, , ,

THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S CLARIFICATION OF BILLING PRACTICES FOR PHYSICIANS WHO DISPENSE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM IS VALID; THE CLARIFICATION IS NOT A “RULE” AND IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined a clarification issued by the respondent NYS Department of Health, was valid, was not a rule, and was not void for vagueness. The clarification concerned the billing practices for physicians who dispense prescription drugs:

As it regularly does, respondent [NYS Department of Health] took steps to clarify appropriate billing practices. This included issuance of the July 2022 edition of its official newsletter of the New York State Medicaid Program — Medicaid Update. In a section entitled “Policy Clarification for Practitioner Dispensing” … , which purported to “supersede[ ] previous communications on this topic,” respondent stated that the state Medicaid program reimburses for drugs furnished by practitioners to their patients on the basis of the acquisition cost to the practitioner and that additional registration or ownership of a pharmacy is not required. The clarification went on to provide that practitioners billing for medications dispensed to its fee-for-service patients should use the medical claim format and that practitioners still participating in managed care should check with the patient’s health plan to determine the billing policy for prescription drugs dispensed directly to patients. Reportedly confused by the alleged change in billing practice, petitioner subsequently contacted respondent for further clarification. In response, respondent reiterated that a practitioner that dispenses drugs to their patients is not considered a pharmacy under either statutory or enrollment requirements and therefore should not be enrolled or billing as a pharmacy provider.

Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the clarification as an unpromulgated rule, unconstitutionally vague, irrational and violative of section 504 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (see 29 USC § 794). Citing anticipated financial losses for expenses attendant to medication dispensing, that is, beyond the acquisition cost of the drugs, petitioner argued that respondent’s alleged new rule would force it to cease its physician-dispensing services altogether, thereby both irrationally depriving cancer patients from effective treatment and discriminating against them by effectively precluding them from meaningful access to the provider of their choice. Matter of North Shore Hematology-Oncology Assoc., P.C. v New York State Dept. of Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01985, Third Dept 4-3-25

, , , , ,

FAMILY COURT LOST SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AFTER THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THEREFORE THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTINUED THE CHILD’S PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined Family Court lost subject matter jurisdiction after the neglect petition against mother was dismissed. Therefore the child’s placement in foster should not have been continued by the court. The First Department also noted that mother’s mental-health records from the period after the filing and after the dismissal of the neglect petition were improperly admitted:

We … find that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue R.C.’s foster care placement for the reasons articulated in Matter of Jamie J. (Michelle E.C.) (30 NY3d 275 [2017]), in which the Court of Appeals held that “Family Court’s jurisdiction terminates upon dismissal of the original neglect or abuse petition” … .

The “court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable, but may be raised at any stage of the action, and the court may . . . on its own motion . . . at any time, when its attention is called to the facts, refuse to proceed further and dismiss the action” … .

Here, once the neglect petition against the mother was dismissed, Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue the child’s temporary removal from the mother’s care and placement in foster care … . Accordingly, it should have immediately returned the child to the mother’s care and terminated the child’s foster care placement. It erred when it determined that it could hold permanency hearings based on the pending neglect petition against the putative father, since the child was not removed from his care, but from the mother’s. … Indeed, there is no evidence in the record that the child ever resided with the putative father and no indication that he ever sought custody of the child.

Furthermore, we find that the failure of Family Court to immediately return the child to the care of the mother after the dismissal of the neglect petition against her—as well as the subsequent protracted proceedings, including the dispositional hearing, which lasted nearly a year and a half—violated her due process rights … . Matter of R.C. (D.C.–R.R.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01859, First Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: Here Family Court lost subject matter jurisdiction after the neglect petition against mother was dismissed and did not have the authority to continue the child’s placement in foster care.

Practice Point: The protracted proceedings after the dismissal of the neglect petition, during which the child remained in foster care, violated mother’s right to due process.

 

, , , ,

MOTHER, WHO WAS REPRESENTING HERSELF IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE JUDGE’S (1) COMMENCING THE HEARING WITHOUT HER, (2) SUBSEQUENTLY EXCLUDING HER FROM THE COURTROOM, (3) DENYING HER REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE IN EVIDENCE, (4) AND DENYING HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO CONSULT WITH HER LEGAL ADVISOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother, who was representing herself, was deprived of her right to due process in this termination of parental rights proceeding by “a confluence of factors:”

“A parent has a due process right to be present during proceedings to terminate parental rights”. Nonetheless, “[a] parent’s right to be present for fact-finding and dispositional hearings in proceedings to terminate parental rights is not absolute” … . “The child whose guardianship and custody is at stake also has a fundamental right to a prompt and permanent adjudication” … . “Thus, when faced with the unavoidable absence of a parent, a court must balance the respective rights and interests of both the parent and the child in determining whether to proceed” … .

Here … the mother was deprived of her due process right to be present in the proceedings seeking to terminate her parental rights. First, the Family Court determined to commence the hearing in the mother’s absence, even though she was proceeding pro se and had made representations to the court through her legal advisor that she had been directed to quarantine by her medical provider and was requesting an adjournment … . Notably, the record does not indicate that the mother had a history of failing to appear, nor did the court apparently rely on that factor in deciding to commence the hearing in the mother’s absence … .

Furthermore, when the hearing continued one week later, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s requests, among other things, for a copy of her own court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, which, at that point, was in evidence, and for additional time to obtain a court transcript and to consult with her legal advisor. Perhaps most significantly, the court abused its discretion in excluding the mother from the courtroom for the remainder of the hearing, without the issuance of a warning and with knowledge of the mother’s diagnoses contained in the psychiatric evaluation … . Thus, on both dates of the hearing, the mother was left without an advocate … . Matter of Justina C. M. J. (Chantilly J.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01805, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here mother was denied the right to be present in the termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, was denied access to evidence and her request for an adjournment to consult with her legal advisor was denied. Cumulatively mother was denied her right to due process.

 

, ,

NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW 11, WHICH ALLOWS NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE, VIOLATES THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined New York City Local Law 11, which allowed non-citizens to vote, violates the New York Constitution:

Local Law 11 allows “municipal voters” to vote in New York City elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President and City Council Member (New York City Charter §§ 1057-aa, 1057-bb). The law defines a municipal voter as “a person who is not a United States citizen on the date of the election on which he or she is voting,” and who: (1) “is either a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States”; (2) “is a resident of New York city and will have been such a resident for 30 consecutive days or longer by the date of such election”; and (3) “meets all qualifications for registering or preregistering to vote under the election law, except for possessing United States citizenship, and who has registered or preregistered to vote with the board of elections in the city of New York under this chapter” … . * * *

Whatever the future may bring, the New York Constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens. Fossella v Adams, 2025 NY Slip Op 01668, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: The NYS Constitution restricts the right to vote to citizens.

 

, ,

IN AN EFFORT TO CONVINCE THE COURT TO GRANT THEIR REQUEST FOR A COMPETENCY HEARING BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S REJECTION OF A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS REVEALED CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENDANT ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE ATTEMPTING TO HELP THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS BECAME WITNESSES AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant was offered a plea deal which avoided incarceration for robbery and assault. When defendant rejected the offer, the defense attorneys requested a competency examination. In arguing for the competency examination, the defense attorneys described their efforts to convince defendant to accept the plea bargain, including a mock trial in the defense attorneys’ office finding defendant guilty. The Second Department determined the defense attorneys, by describing their confidential communications with defendant, which included the strength of the evidence, had become witnesses against the defendant:

… [T]he defendant’s right to counsel was adversely affected, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorneys revealed confidential communications on the record and, in effect, took a position adverse to him … . Contrary to the People’s contention, defense counsels did more than merely express concern that the defendant misunderstood the nature of the relevant issues … . Instead, defense counsels emphasized the strength of the evidence against their client, including revealing that a mock trial conducted in their office resulted in the defendant being found guilty … . These detailed statements, in effect, made defense counsels witnesses against their client, regardless of whether defense counsels allegedly made these statements in order to aid the application for an examination pursuant to CPL article 730 or in an attempt to persuade the defendant to accept what they viewed as a highly favorable plea offer. Although defense counsels had an obligation to advise the defendant regarding the plea offer … , the defendant retains the authority to accept or reject a plea offer, even having accepted the assistance of counsel … , and defense counsels must provide meaningful representation consistent with the defendant’s desire to proceed to trial … . People v Montgomery, 2025 NY Slip Op 01111, Second Dept 2-26-25

Practice Point: Here the defense was trying to help the defendant by requesting a competency hearing after he rejected a favorable plea offer. In arguing for the competency hearing, the defense revealed confidential discussions with the defendant about the strength of the evidence, thereby becoming witnesses against the defendant and depriving him of his right to counsel.​

 

,

THE ETHICS COMMISSION REFORM ACT OF 2022, WHICH VESTS A COMMISSION WITH THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE AND ENFORCE ETHICS AND LOBBYING LAWS WITH RESPECT TO ELECTED OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES OF THE LEGISLATURE, STATE OFFICERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES, CURRENT AND FORMER CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, AND LOBBYISTS (AMONG OTHERS), DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, determined the Ethics Commission Reform Act of 2022 did not unconstitutionally vest the State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government with executive power. The Act is not unconstitutional:

The issue on this appeal is whether, on its face, the Ethics Commission Reform Act of 2022 unconstitutionally vests the State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government with executive power. Plaintiff’s principal argument is that because the Commission exercises executive power, the Governor must have power to appoint and remove the Commissioners. In New York, however, the Legislature—not the Governor—may ordinarily define the terms on which non-constitutional state officers may be appointed and removed. Moreover, the Legislature structured the Commission to address a narrow but crucial gap arising from the inherent disincentive for the Executive Branch to investigate and discipline itself, which has serious consequences for public confidence in government. The Act does not displace the Executive Branch to accomplish that goal; instead, it confers upon an independent agency power to enforce a narrow set of laws, thus mitigating the unique danger of self-regulation. The Act addresses a threat to the legitimacy of government itself with an extraordinary response. While the Act extends very close to the boundary of permissible legislation, it is not “intrinsically a constitutional affront to the separation of powers doctrine” … . * * *

The Legislature … enacted … the Ethics Commission Reform Act of 2022 (the Act), which amended Executive Law § 94 and replaced JCOPE [Judicial Commission on Public Ethics] with the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government. Like JCOPE, the Commission is established in the Department of State and charged with the investigation and enforcement of the ethics and lobbying laws … . Those under the Commission’s jurisdiction include statewide elected officials; members and employees of the Legislature; certain statutorily defined state officers and employees; current and former candidates for statewide office, Senate, and Assembly; the political party chair; and current and former lobbyists and their clients … . The Commission also enforces financial disclosure requirements and reviews disclosure forms of statewide elected officials, their officers and employees and other persons subject to disclosure under Public Officers Law 73-a … . As part of its specific grant of authority under the Act, the Commission has rulemaking power to “adopt, amend and rescind any rules and regulations pertaining to” Public Officers Law § 73 (concerning official ethics), Public Officers Law § 73-a (financial disclosure), Legislative Law Article 1-a (lobbying) and Civil Service Law § 107 (political activities and contributions) (Executive Law § 94 [5] [a]). With respect to members and employees of the Legislature, the Commission’s powers are limited: the Commission may investigate such persons but must refer any potential violations of the ethics laws to the legislative ethics commission … . Cuomo v New York State Commn. on Ethics & Lobbying in Govt., 2025 NY Slip Op 00902, CtApp 2-18-25

 

, ,

THE REGULATIONS WHICH PLACE A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL PERSONS WHO CAN BE ADMITTED TO A LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the regulations putting a cap on the number of seriously mentally ill persons who can be accepted by a long-term care facility did not facially discriminate against persons with disabilities:

The State of New York’s Department of Health (DOH) licenses certain facilities known as “adult homes” to provide “long-term care, room, board, housekeeping, personal care and supervision to five or more adults unrelated to the operator” (Dept of Health Regs [18 NYCRR] § 485.2 [b]). Regulations promulgated by DOH provide that an adult home may not admit additional residents with serious mental illness if it has a capacity of 80 or more beds and its resident population is over 25% persons with serious mental illness … . Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc., an adult home subject to this admissions cap, claims that those regulations discriminate against persons with disabilities in violation of the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (FHAA), which extended the protections of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to persons with disabilities (see 42 USC § 3604 [f] [1]-[2]). We conclude that plaintiff has failed to establish that the challenged regulations facially discriminate against persons with disabilities, and therefore affirm. Matter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v Zucker, 2025 NY Slip Op 00805, CtApp 2-13-25

 

, , , ,

THE 2024 AMENDMENTS WHICH SET A STANDARD FOR DETERMINING CLAIMS ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE A RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT APPLY TO CLAIMS PENDING AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT AND ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Connolly, determined the 2024 amendments (the “chapter amendments”), which set forth a standard for determining claims alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a rent-stabilized apartment, applied retroactively to claims pending when the amendments were enacted and are constitutional:

First, we must determine whether so much of the chapter amendments as set forth the standard for determining a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a rent-stabilized apartment unit applies to actions such as this one, which were commenced before the effective date of the chapter amendments but were pending before a court on the effective date. We hold that it does.

Next, we must determine whether the defendant established that so much of the chapter amendments as set forth the standard for determining a fraudulent scheme to deregulate an apartment unit is unconstitutional on its face or whether it would be unconstitutional to apply that portion of the chapter amendments to this action. We hold that the defendant did not establish that the relevant portion of the chapter amendments is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied in this action.

Finally, applying the standard set forth in the chapter amendments, we must determine whether the plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the defendant engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the subject apartment units such that the formula set forth in Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §§ 2522.6(b)(3) and 2526.1(g) (hereinafter the default formula) should be used to calculate the legal regulated rent and any rent overcharges. We hold that the plaintiffs did not meet their prima facie burden. Gomes v Vermyck, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00849, Second Dept 2-13-25

 

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