Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant owned a part-time residence in New York but intended to make Louisiana his primary residence. Appellant applied for a New York State pistol/revolver license pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law 400.00 and inquired whether he would still be eligible for a handgun license. The county court judge denied Appellant's application for a handgun license, concluding that the term "residence" was equivalent to "domicile," and therefore, because Appellant was not domiciled in New York, he was ineligible for the license. Appellant commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the judge had violated his right to keep and bear arms and his right to equal protection by denying his license application on the ground of his domicile. The district court granted the judge summary judgment. Upon Appellant's appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the N.Y. Court of Appeals. The Court answered by holding that an applicant who owns a part-time residence in New York but makes his permanent domicile elsewhere is eligible for a New York handgun license in the city or county where his part-time residence is located. View "Osterweil v. Bartlett" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the facial constitutionality of N.Y. Pub. Health Law 2808(5)(c), which prohibits the withdrawal or transfer of residential health care facility equity or assets in amount exceeding three percent of the facility's most recently reported annual revenue from patient care services without the prior approval of the State Commissioner of Health. Plaintiffs in this case were concerned that the challenged provision would negatively impact nursing homes. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs, concluding that the statute impermissibly ceded legislative policymaking power to a regulatory agency situated in the executive branch and infringed on the substantive due process property interests of facility owners. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the lower courts erred in concluding that the statute was offensive to substantive due process; and (2) the statute does not improperly delegate legislative policy-making power. View "Brightonian Nursing Home v. Daines" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offense of manslaughter. The Appellate Division affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether Defendant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who was a long-time friend of the prosecuting attorney. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that counsel's decision not to use a peremptory challenge on the juror was questionable, but the mistake, if it was one, was not the sort of egregious and prejudicial error that rendered counsel's representation of Defendant as a whole ineffective, and thus, Defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to counsel. View "People v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant, a patient in the psychiatric ward of a medical center, was convicted of assault in the first and second degree based on an incident in which he assaulted and severely injured another psychiatric patient. The Appellate Division modified by vacating the second degree assault conviction and, as modified, affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Supreme Court did not deny Defendant his constitutional right to present a defense, to confront witnesses, and to a fair trial by limiting Defendant's examination of two witnesses - a doctor who evaluated Defendant after the assault and the assault victim's father. View "People v. Daryl H." on Justia Law

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