Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional murder and second-degree weapon possession. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge committed mode of proceedings errors by departing from the protocol for handling jury notes set forth in People v. O'Rama. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence, determining that Defendant's unpreserved claims did not implicate O'Rama or constitute mode of proceedings errors and declining to reach them in the interest of justice. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's claims were unpreserved and unreviewable and did not constitute mode of proceedings errors. View "People v. Alcide" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a State employee. Suspecting that Petitioner was submitting false time reports, the State attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to Petitioner's car. After a report by the Inspector General based on evidence obtained from the GPS device, the Commissioner of Labor terminated Petitioner's employment. The appellate division confirmed the Commissioner's determination and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to People v. Weaver and United States v. Jones, the State's action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions; (2) the search in this case did not require a warrant; but (3) the State failed to demonstrate that the search was reasonable. Remanded. View "Cunningham v. State Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

In these two unrelated cases, Defendants were resentenced because the sentencing court failed to impose mandatory postrelease supervision (PRS) as part of the original sentence. Defendants appealed, concluding that the imposition of PRS to their determinate sentences at resentencing violated Double Jeopardy Clause. The Appellate Division affirmed the resentences, concluding that Defendants did not have a legitimate expectation of finality in their respective determinate sentences because they had not completed their aggregated sentences prior to resentencing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants' respective resentences did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because Defendants did not have a legitimate expectation of finality until they had completed their aggregated sentences under N.Y. Penal Law 70.30. View "People v. Brinson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that his arrest was illegal, and therefore, his subsequent lineup identification as the perpetrator of the crime was the fruit of an illegal arrest. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding (1) the officer who arrested Defendant lacked probable cause to stop and arrest Defendant; but (2) an "intervening event" attenuated the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the lineup identification. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the initial arrest of Defendant was without probable cause and therefore illegal; but (2) at the time of the lineup identification, any taint of the illegal arrest had been attenuated. View "People v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with second-degree assault based on a confrontation with Complainant. After a Sandoval hearing, the People received permission to cross-examine Defendant about his recent rape conviction, still pending on direct appeal. Defendant was convicted of third-degree assault. Subsequently, Defendants conviction for rape was reversed, and he was retried and acquitted. The Appellate Division affirmed the assault conviction, holding that the Sandoval issue was unpreserved for appellate review. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, holding (1) the Sandoval issue was properly preserved; (2) the prosecution may not cross-examine about the underlying facts of an unrelated criminal conviction on appeal for the purpose of impeaching his credibility; and (3) accordingly, the trial court's ruling allowing admission of the underlying facts of Defendant's rape conviction was in error, as it violated Defendant's privilege against self incrimination. View "People v. Cantave" on Justia Law

Twelve-year-old Tiffany had a seizure followed by cardiac arrest. Two emergency medical technicians (EMTs) employed by New York City arrived in response to Tiffany's mother's 911 call and began performing CPR on Tiffany until paramedics from a private hospital arrived in an advanced life support ambulance. Tiffany suffered serious brain damages from the ordeal. Tiffany and her mother filed this negligence action against the City and its emergency medical services. Under State law, when a municipality provides ambulance service by emergency medical technicians in response to a 911 call, it performs a governmental function and cannot be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party. Supreme Court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City did not owe Plaintiffs a special duty or that the municipal defendants were the proximate cause of the harm. The Appellate Division reversed, determining that Plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the City assumed a special duty to Plaintiffs and whether it proximately caused their injuries. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs adequately established questions of fact on the applicability of the special duty doctrine. View "Applewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc. " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder of a child and manslaughter in the first degree. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant's state of mind during the crime was one of utter indifference to the value of human life, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of depraved indifference murder; (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant consciously disregarded the substantial and unjustifiable risk that death or serious injury would result from his actions; (3) the evidence of first-degree manslaughter was sufficient; and (4) Defendant's counsel offered effective assistance. View "People v. Barboni" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal possession in the second degree. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the weapon obtained during a search, arguing that the manner in which a police officer conducted the inventory search of Defendant's vehicle was improper, and thus, the entire search was invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the People met their burden of establishing a valid inventory search of Defendant's vehicle, as (1) the search was in accordance with procedure; (2) the search was not made invalid when the officer conducting the search did not follow the written police procedure by giving some of the contents of the vehicle to a third party without itemizing that property; and (3) the fact that the officer searched in the vehicle's seat panels, knowing that contraband is often hidden by criminals in such places, did not invalidate the search because the officer's intention was to search for items to inventory. View "People v. Padilla " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to twenty-five years to life. Defendant moved to vacate the conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for, among several other things, failing to obtain Defendant's psychiatric records. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the motion to vacate and remanded for a new trial, holding that trial counsel's failure to obtain and review Defendant's psychiatric records deprived Defendant of effective representation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that trial counsel's failure to obtain and review Defendant's psychiatric records and to pursue a strategy informed by both the available evidence and Defendant's concerns seriously compromised Defendant's right to a fair trial. View "People v. Oliveras" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the constitutionality of the HAIL Act, which regulates medallion taxicabs and livery vehicles. The Act's stated aim is to address certain mobility deficiencies in the City of New York. Plaintiffs, medallion owners and their representatives, challenged the HAIL Act on the ground that the regulation of yellow cab and livery enterprises is a matter of local concern. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that the Act violates the State Constitution's Municipal Home Rule Clause, the Double Enactment Clause, and the Exclusive Privileges Clause. Supreme Court entered a judgment nullifying the Act and declaring that it violated the Constitution. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the HAIL Act does not violate the Municipal Home Rule Clause, the Double Enactment Clause, or the Exclusive Privileges Clause. View "Greater N.Y. Taxi Ass'n v. State" on Justia Law