You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED A JUROR’S CLAIM THAT OTHER JURORS HAD EXHIBITED RACIAL BIAS DURING DELIBERATIONS AND PROPERLY DENIED THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A MISTRIAL; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garcia, affirming the Appellate Division, over an extensive dissent, determined the trial judge properly assessed a juror’s claim that jurors exhibited racial bias during deliberations and properly denied defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial:

On appeal, the Appellate Division held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a mistrial because the court made an “appropriate inquiry into this most serious charge” of racial bias by consulting with the parties and questioning relevant jurors, which ensured that “defendant’s right to an impartial verdict [was] properly balanced with the jury’s right to adjudicate ‘free from outside interference’ “… . In reviewing the actions of the trial judge, the Court concluded that ” ‘[i]n a probing and tactful inquiry, the [trial] court [did] evaluate the nature of what [juror No. 5] ha[d] seen, heard, or ha[d] acquired knowledge of, and assess[ed] its importance and its bearing on the case’ ” … . Two Justices dissented, asserting they were “unable to conclude on the record before us that the jury was not tainted by racial bias in their deliberations” … . … * * *

… [T]he judge was aware of the conduct of the jurors throughout the proceedings, observed the demeanor of the jurors as they were questioned on the issue of racial bias, evaluated their responses, and reasonably concluded on this record that what Juror 5 perceived as racial bias was in fact a discussion about the identification evidence, some of which, as the court noted in its post-trial decision denying the motion to set aside the verdict, may have been misinterpreted. As to the other unidentified jurors allegedly harboring some form of racial bias, defense counsel declined to request that the court question them individually (and, indeed, argued that the court should not do so), and therefore “the only asserted error preserved for appellate review was the denial of the motion for a mistrial” … . Our role is not to substitute our judgment as to the appropriate remedy for that of the trial judge. … On review of the record here, we hold that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion for a mistrial. People v Jaylin Wiggins, 2025 NY Slip Op 06539, Ct App 11-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the issues raised by a juror’s claim that other jurors have exhibited racial bias during deliberations. Here the majority concluded the trial judge handled the inquiry properly and properly denied the defense request for a mistrial.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WIRED $300,000 TO AN ACCOUNT IN DEFENDANT BANK WHICH HAD BEEN SET UP BY A FRAUDSTER TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PLEAD A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT BANK WHICH IS REQUIRED BEFORE A DUTY (OWED TO PLAINTIFF) TO ENFORCE ITS ANTI-FRAUD PROCEDURES ARISES; THE COMPLAINT THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a one-sentence memorandum decision which adopted the reasoning of the Second Department dissent by Justice Higgitt, reversed the Second Department’s ruling that the complaint adequately pled a special relationship between the bank and plaintiff and held that the bank’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. There must have existed a special relationship between defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank and plaintiff before a duty (owed to plaintiff) to enforce the bank’s anti-fraud procedures arises. Defendant David Tate had opened an account at a New Jersey Chase bank in the name of his business, Alchemy. Tate did not provide any personal identification or any corporate documentation to the bank. Plaintiff, thinking she was investing in Alchemy, wired $300,000 to the Alchemy account which was appropriated by Tate. As Justice Higgitt wrote in his dissent:

On this appeal, which involves an individual who was swindled when she authorized a wire transfer to the account of a fraudster, we are asked to determine whether New Jersey law recognizes a common-law duty on the part of a bank to an existing customer to exercise reasonable care before permitting a potential customer to open an account. I find that a duty to exercise such care exists only when a bank has a “special relationship” with its existing customer from which that duty should be deemed to flow. The amended complaint, however, fails to allege facts suggesting that a special relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant Bank. Therefore, defendant Bank’s CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion should have been granted. Ben-Dor v Alchemy Consultant LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03797, Second Dept 7-11-24; Ben-Dor v Alchemy Consultant LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06538 CtApp 11-25-25

Practice Point: In New Jersey, to sue a bank for the wrongful conduct of a third party, here the use of a bank account to defraud plaintiff, the bank must owe plaintiff a special duty. Reversing the Second Department and adopting the reasoning of the dissent, the Court of Appeals held the complaint should have been dismissed because it did not adequately allege the existence of a special relationship between the bank and the plaintiff.

 

, , ,

THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) WAS PROPERLY APPLIED RETROACTIVELY IN THIS CASE; RETROACTIVE APPLICATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OR CONTRACT CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined the Foreclosure Prevention Abuse Act applied retroactively to the case before it. Retroactive application does not violate the Due Process or Contract Clauses of the United States Constitution:

We therefore hold that the provisions apply retroactively. Accordingly, because “a final judgment of foreclosure and sale has not been enforced” in this action … , FAPA §§ 4, 7, and 8 govern here by their terms. * * *

To comport with substantive due process, a statute’s retroactive application must be supported by “a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means” … . That is, “the retroactive application of the legislation” must “itself [be] justified by a rational legislative purpose” … .

… FAPA’s legislative history identifies certain “abus[ive]” litigation practices engaged in by mortgage lenders and noteholders as the animating force behind FAPA’s enactment: the sponsors’ memoranda state “legislat[ive] find[ings]” to this effect … . In light of the legislature’s determination that these “abuses” should be curtailed, it is rational for FAPA to apply retroactively to shield as many borrowers as possible from those practices. Moreover, insofar as FAPA’s relevant provisions clarify or change the manner in which the six-year statute of limitations applies, FAPA’s retroactive application also rationally advances “the strong public policy favoring finality, predictability, fairness and repose” in human affairs … . Van Dyke v U.S. Bank, Natl. Assn., 2025 NY Slip Op 06537, CtApp 11-25-25

 

, ,

IN ANSWERING TWO CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIED RETROACTIVELY AND DID NOT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS UNDER THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, answering two certified questions from the Second Circuit, determined (1) the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) took effect immediately upon enactment and applied to all foreclosure actions in which a final judgment of foreclosure has not been enforced, and (2), retroactive application of the statute does not violate substantive or procedural due process rights under the New York Constitution:

… FAPA Section 7 applies to “foreclosure actions commenced before the statute’s enactment.” FAPA achieved its clear purpose with straightforward statutory text. The portion of Section 7 of FAPA at issue in this case is codified at CPLR 213 (4) (b):

“[A] defendant shall be estopped from asserting that the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitation for the commencement of an action upon the instrument has not expired because the instrument was not validly accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated.”

FAPA Section 10 then provides that “[t]his act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all actions commenced on[, as relevant here, a residential mortgage loan agreement,] in which a final judgment of foreclosure and sale has not been enforced.” Article 13 LLC v Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank, 2025 NY Slip Op 06536, CtApp 11-25-25

 

,

HERE THE MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DID NOT INCLUDE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING ONE OF THE COUNTS; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE’S CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CPL 30.30 (5-A) WAS INACCURATE; THE INACCURACY REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL OF THE COUNT, NOT THE INVALIDATION THE PEOPLE’S CORRESPONDING CPL 245.20 STATEMENT OF READINESS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a two-judge dissent, determined that if the People’s CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification is inaccurate because the misdemeanor complaint did not include facts supporting one of the counts, the appropriate remedy is dismissal of the defective count, not the invalidation of the People’s statement of readiness:

On its face, the clear language of CPL 30.30 (5-a) requires that the People, in conjunction with filing their statement of readiness, certify that each count of the accusatory instrument is supported by facially sufficient, nonhearsay allegations, and that any counts that are not so supported have been dismissed. However, the statute does not provide for any readiness-related consequence for a mistaken or incorrect certification …. Such a requirement would make little sense because facial sufficiency is a legal question—sometimes a close legal question—and the People cannot reasonably be expected to attest accurately to the outcome of a defendant’s challenge to the facial sufficiency of the instrument … .

Defendant contends that the People’s obligation to certify facial sufficiency should be treated the same as the requirement that they certify compliance with their discovery obligations under CPL article 245. A comparison of the text of the relevant provisions reveals why this interpretation is incorrect. CPL 30.30 (5), as originally enacted in 2019, specifically stated that any “statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of [CPL 245.20] and the defense shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the record as to whether the disclosure requirements have been met.” Mirroring this provision, CPL 245.50 (3) provided that “the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of [CPL 30.30] until it has filed a proper certificate” of compliance (former CPL 245.50 [3] [emphasis added]). .. [R]ead together, CPL 245.50 and [CPL] 30.30 require that due diligence must be conducted prior to filing a” certificate of compliance… . Thus, unlike the subdivision (5-a) certification requirement, the legislature specifically provided that an invalid certificate of compliance would render the People’s accompanying statement of readiness illusory. The legislature could have, but did not, similarly tie the accuracy of certification pursuant to subdivision (5-a) to the People’s trial readiness. People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 06535, CtApp 1125-25

Practice Point: The failure to include factual allegations in support of a count in a misdemeanor complaint which has been certified to be in compliance with CPL 30.30 (5-a) requires dismissal of that count, but does not invalidate the corresponding CPL 245.20 statement of readiness.

 

, ,

THE APPROPRIATE TEST FOR WHETHER THE POLICE HAD “REASONABLE SUSPICION” SUFFICIENT FOR A TRAFFIC STOP BASED ON AN ANONYMOUS TIP IS THE “TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES;” THE CRITERIA INCLUDE THE AGUILAR-SPINELLI RELIABILITY AND BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE FACTORS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a two-judge dissent, applied the “totality of the circumstances” test and determined the police had probable cause to stop defendant’s car based upon an anonymous tip. The anonymous 911 caller told the dispatcher he was calling from a specified intersection and he had just been shot by two Black males in a white Mercedes. The caller said he knew the perpetrators and gave the dispatcher the address of one of them. A police officer four blocks away in a patrol car spotted a White Mercedes 30 to 60 seconds after the dispatcher broadcasted the report and stopped it. After the officer confirmed the address on the driver’s license was the address provided by the 911 caller, the officer asked if there were anything in the car he should know about. After the driver said “no, you can check the car” the officer saw a handgun and smelled gun powder through a gap in the locked glove compartment:

We have continued to apply the principles of Aguilar-Spinelli in the probable cause context … after the United States Supreme Court abandoned it in favor of the totality-of-the-circumstances approach (see Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213, 233 [1983] …), in recognition that Aguilar-Spinelli is more protective of our citizens’ rights under the State Constitution … . At issue here … is whether that same analysis is required for the lesser intrusion of an investigatory stop requiring reasonable suspicion. * * *

… [W]e now hold that the appropriate test is whether an anonymous tip is sufficiently reliable to provide reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances. While this approach involves an analysis of the Aguilar-Spinelli reliability and basis of knowledge factors, “allowance must be made in applying them for the lesser showing required” to meet the reasonable suspicion standard .. . .

Here, the totality of the circumstances establishes that there was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle. The anonymous informant used the 911 system to report that he had “just been shot,” necessarily claiming personal knowledge of the crime. The caller also provided a description of the alleged shooter, the make and color of the shooter’s vehicle, and his location. The police were able to corroborate that information, within one minute of receiving the dispatch and within a block from the reported location, when they observed a car and suspect matching the description provided. The contemporaneous nature of the report is substantial here and weighs in favor of the caller’s veracity.

The police were duty-bound to investigate the radio report of a shooting, and they could not ignore their own contemporaneous observation of a vehicle matching the caller’s description and location. … [O]ur review of the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct is limited to the information known to the police at the time of the vehicle stop. … [T]here is record support for the affirmed finding of reasonable suspicion. People v Leighton R., 2025 NY Slip Op 06534, CtApp 11-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the application of the “totality of the circumstances” test to determine whether there was “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to justify a traffic stop based on an anonymous tip.

 

, ,

INDIGENT PARTIES WHO ARE ASSIGNED COUNSEL IN FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS HAVE A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; HERE IN THESE PERMANENT-NEGLECT/TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDINGS, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED MOTHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THERE WAS A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over a two-judge dissent, determined mother had a right to, but did not receive, effective assistance of counsel in the permanent neglect proceeding in Family Court. Assigned counsel did not speak to mother until after the fact-finding hearing had begun, was unprepared, and did not request an adjournment. During the fact-finding hearing, mother asked to represent herself and waived her right counsel. Assigned counsel remained in a standby capacity. After the fact-finding hearing, the court moved directly to the dispositional hearing. During the dispositional hearing mother’s request for representation was denied:

… [D]espite being assigned more than two months earlier, counsel had not spoken to the mother before the hearing to terminate her parental rights had already begun. We cannot determine based on this record why counsel and the mother did not speak prior to the fact-finding hearing, and the court did not inquire, so the reasons for that lack of communication are pure speculation. Even assuming … that counsel attempted to contact the mother but was unsuccessful, there is no strategic or other reasonable explanation for counsel’s failure to request an adjournment of the proceeding so that he could speak to his client before the fact-finding hearing began, especially when the mother indicated that she would not be surrendering her parental rights. Before the mother indicated that she would not, in fact, surrender her parental rights, counsel could have legitimately thought that the fact-finding hearing would not go forward. However, once it was clear that the hearing was about to commence, counsel should have requested an adjournment to speak to his client about the proceeding and its implications. Counsel’s failure to do so lacks a strategic or legitimate explanation.

Counsel also appeared unprepared, questioning whether the records that were subpoenaed were available to be reviewed and announcing that he would remain silent during the hearing, only to be admonished by the court that he was required to participate. In addition, the court, faced with a record that showed counsel’s unpreparedness to proceed due to lack of communication, continued forward with the fact-finding hearing and the dispositional hearing even after it was clear that the mother did not understand the proceedings, denied the mother’s subsequent request to be represented by counsel even though the court told the mother she could change her mind about self-representation, and gave the mother’s standby counsel only five minutes in which to explain the proceedings to her. Matter of Parker J. (Beth F.), 2025 NY Slip Op 06533, CtApp 11-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of an assigned counsel representing an indigent parent in permanent neglect and termination of parental rights proceedings.

 

DURING MARCH AND APRIL 2020 CLAIMANT, WHO WORKED IN RETAIL IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC, WAS EXEMPT FROM THE EMERGENCY WORK RESTRICTIONS; CLAIMANT CONTRACTED COVID, SUFFERED A STROKE AND WAS HOSPITALIZED FOR FOUR MONTHS; HIS CLAIM CONSTITUTED A “COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT;” CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED AN EXTRAORDINARY RISK OF EXPOSURE DUE TO FREQUENT CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC “IN AN AREA WHERE COVID WAS PREVALENT” (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined the Workers’ Compensation Board properly considered the “prevalence of the COVID virus” in the claimant’s workplace and properly awarded benefits. Claimant, who worked in retail, was exempt from the emergency restrictions and had extensive contact with the public during March and April 2022. After contracting COVID, claimant had a stroke and was hospitalized for four months:

… [C]laimant testified that he worked full time in a high-volume store during March and April 2020. According to claimant, his job responsibilities involved almost constant contact with the public, working either on the store floor or as a cashier. Claimant testified that employer did not provide store employees with sneeze guards or protective face masks until mid-April 2020. Although employer had a policy requiring customers to socially distance and wear face masks in the store, claimant explained that management advised employees not to enforce that policy. Many customers did not wear face masks, and claimant recounted specific instances of close contact with customers despite employer’s social-distancing policy. * * *

The Board determined that relevant case law “indicate[d] that if a claimant contracts COVID-19 through close contact with the public, such exposure could be found to be a work-related accident within the meaning of [Workers’ Compensation Law] § 2 (7).” According to the Board, a claimant can demonstrate this by showing COVID-19’s “prevalence” in the workplace … . * * *

… [T]o establish that an illness due to exposure to pathogens or adverse environmental conditions is compensable, a claimant must demonstrate that the illness was caused by “extraordinary” workplace exposure … . Consistent with that requirement, the Board’s “prevalence” framework requires a claimant to show a “significantly elevated” risk of exposure … . As applied to COVID-19, the “prevalence” framework specifically requires a claimant to demonstrate an “extraordinary” level of exposure through evidence of frequent contact with the public or co-workers “in an area where COVID-19 is prevalent.” … [P]ersistent, high-risk exposure to a disease in the workplace culminating in infection can constitute a compensable accident … . Matter of Aungst v Family Dollar, 2025 NY Slip Op 06530, CtApp 11-24-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when exposure to a disease in the workplace, here COVID, can be considered a “compensable accident” under the Workers’ Compensation Law.​

 

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY DENIED BENEFITS FOR PTSD SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF EXPOSURE TO COVID IN THE WORKPLACE BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THE CLAIMANTS’ EXPOSURE AS OPPOSED TO THAT OF THE REST OF THE WORK FORCE; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED TO CHANGE THE ANALYSIS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY SUCH THAT WHETHER A CLAIMANT SUFFERED STRESS GREATER THAN WHAT USUALLY OCCURS IN THE NORMAL WORK ENVIRONMENT IS NO LONGER A CONSIDERATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a three-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the workers’ claims for benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from workplace exposure to COVID were properly denied by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board reasoned that the exposure was not the result of an “accident” because everyone in the workplace was similarly exposed. The Court of Appeals noted that the Workers’ Compensation Law has recently been amended to provide that psychological-injury claims can no longer be disallowed on the ground the underlying stress was no greater that what usually occurs in the normal work environment:

… [E]vidence of COVID-19’s prevalence in the workplace does not relieve a claimant of the burden to establish that the injury was accidental which, in cases of emotional stress-induced psychological injury, has involved a demonstration by the claimant of stress greater than the stress experienced by similarly situated workers in the normal work environment. Here, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the stress of workplace exposure experienced by claimants was comparable to the stress experienced by similarly situated workers in the normal work environment during the COVID-19 pandemic … .

Neither our decision today nor the approach of our dissenting colleagues could be expected to have a significant impact on the development of the law. After the Appellate Division decided these appeals, the legislature amended the Workers’ Compensation Law to provide that the Board “may not disallow a claim” for PTSD, acute stress disorder, or major depressive disorder “upon a factual finding that the stress was not greater than that which usually occurs in the normal work environment” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 [3] [c]). By amending the statute in this manner, the legislature has determined that claims of psychological injuries should be evaluated under a standard more favorable than even the dissent’s novel standard.…  Claimants do not argue that the newly amended language applies retroactively to the Board decisions, which predate the effective date of the legislation. Matter of McLaurin v New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 06529, CtApp 11-24-25

Practice Point: A recent amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Law provides that, where psychological injury is claimed, whether the stress suffered by the claimants is greater than that which usually occurs in the normal work environment is no longer a consideration. Here, in this pre-amendment case, the fact that the claimants’ exposure to COVID was no greater than the exposure suffered by the rest of the workforce was a proper ground for the denial of psychological-injury benefits.​

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE CONCEALED CARRY STATUTE AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF HIS INDICTMENT (A PROVISION OF THE STATUTE WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE US SUPREME COURT JUST PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S INDICTMENT) SURVIVED HIS WAIVER OF APPEAL; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER APPLIED FOR A FIREMARM LICENSE, HE HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE STATUTE BASED ON HIS CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; THE CHALLENGED PORTION OF THE STATUTE IS SEVERABLE FROM THE OTHER PROVISIONS; DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION RENDERED THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER ALL CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FACIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a three-judge concurrence, determined: (1) the defendant’s challenge to the facial constitutionality of the state’s firearm licensing scheme survived his waiver of appeal; (2) the defendant, who was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a weapon, has standing to challenge the state’s firearm licensing scheme as it was codified at the time of his indictment; (3) although one of the requirements for licensure in the relevant statute (Penal Law 400.00(2)(f) was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court just before defendant’s indictment, that requirement is severable and did not render the entire statutory scheme unconstitutional. In 2022 the US Supreme Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1, found unconstitutional the statute’s “proper cause” language, which required an individual seeking a concealed-carry license for a pistol or revolver to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” Although since removed, the “proper cause” language remained in the statute at the time of defendant’s indictment:

We hold that a facial constitutional challenge such as the one presented here likewise falls into the narrow class of non-waivable appellate claims. Hornbook law underscores the very high bar for this type of challenge: a litigant must contend that “in any degree and in every conceivable application, the law suffers wholesale constitutional impairment” … . In the rare circumstances where a facial challenge is successful, “the law is invalid in toto—and therefore incapable of any valid application” … , and thus the State will lack authority to prosecute or punish the defendant or anyone else for the conduct at issue. … [A]facial challenge goes squarely to the “fairness in the process itself” … , and transcends an individual defendant’s concerns to implicate “a larger societal interest in its correct resolution” …  . Accordingly, a waiver that precludes appellate review of a facial constitutional challenge to a criminal statute should not be enforced. * * *

Both the People and the Attorney General argue that the defendant lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the licensing scheme because he never applied for a firearm license. We disagree. * * *

We find the “proper cause” requirement severable. The text and structure of the licensing scheme evince a clear legislative intent to regulate the lawful purchase, possession, and use of firearms. The licensing scheme is detailed and multi-faceted; the “proper cause” provision was just one aspect of a much broader scheme that includes a variety of distinct requirements. People v Johnson, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, Ct App 11-24-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute will survive a waiver of appeal, when a defendant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute, when a portion of a challenged statute will be deemed severable from the other provisions, and whether an unconstitutional statutory provision renders the entire statute unconstitutional in every conceivable circumstance (a requirement for facial unconstitutionality).

 

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