unconstitutional violation in New York

1989Numerous other rights of both constitutional and nonconstitutional dimension, however, have been held not to survive, including: the right to trial by a jury (Duncan v Lousiana, 391 US 145 ); the right to confrontation (Pointer v Texas, 380 US 400 ); the alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 , supra); an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ); or a challenge based on allegedly discriminatory composition of the Grand Jury (People v Siciliano, 40 NY2d 996 , rearg denied 41 NY2d 901 , appeal dismissed 430 US 9

1985Examples include an alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 ); a claimed deficiency in a jurisdictionally sufficient accusatory instrument (People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008 ; People v Cohen, 52 NY2d 584 ); and an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ) or preindictment prosecutorial misconduct (People v Di Raffaele, 55 NY2d 234 ).

1989Numerous other rights of both constitutional and nonconstitutional dimension, however, have been held not to survive, including: the right to trial by a jury (Duncan v Lousiana, 391 US 145 ); the right to confrontation (Pointer v Texas, 380 US 400 ); the alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 , supra); an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ); or a challenge based on allegedly discriminatory composition of the Grand Jury (People v Siciliano, 40 NY2d 996 , rearg denied 41 NY2d 901 , appeal dismissed 430 US 9

1985Examples include an alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 ); a claimed deficiency in a jurisdictionally sufficient accusatory instrument (People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008 ; People v Cohen, 52 NY2d 584 ); and an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ) or preindictment prosecutorial misconduct (People v Di Raffaele, 55 NY2d 234 ).

2025As such, the Supreme Court also should have denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the cause of action for the imposition of a $1,000 forfeiture against the defendant pursuant to CPLR 7003(c) and granted that branch of the defendant's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint on that basis, and should have granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, for a judgment declaring that the CPLR 7003(c) is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine ( see Matter of Catanise v Town of Fayette , 1

2017In 2012, the trial court struck down the 2001 zoning regulations as to adult eating and drinking establishments and adult bookstores as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, enjoining the City from enforcing them (see 38 Misc 3d 663 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012]).

1999In Matter of Hynes v Tomei (supra), the Court of Appeals also found the law severable, but elected to strike not the provisions authorizing the death penalty but those governing plea bargaining.

1997Assn. v Pataki ( 969 F Supp 160 [1997, Preska, J.]), which concluded that New York Penal Law § 235.21 (3), directed at computer communication system transmission of obscene material, was an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and stated the view that "the Internet is one of those areas of commerce that must be marked off as a national preserve to protect users from inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the Internet altogether” (at 169).

1993The Department of Transportation regulation which prohib its the taking of photographs or moving pictures except in a designated parking area or otherwise as authorized by the Department of Transportation is a reasonable exercise of police power and is not an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, either as applied to the defendant herein or by reason of overbreadth (see, New York State Club Assn. v New York City, 487 US 1 ; Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665 ).

1993The Department of Transportation regulation which prohib its the taking of photographs or moving pictures except in a designated parking area or otherwise as authorized by the Department of Transportation is a reasonable exercise of police power and is not an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, either as applied to the defendant herein or by reason of overbreadth (see, New York State Club Assn. v New York City, 487 US 1 ; Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665 ).

1993Moreover, the return, by which this court is bound, gives no basis to disturb any of defendant’s convictions (see, People v Prior, 4 NY2d 70 ).

1990These circumstances were sufficient to establish a "pattern of strikes” against black prospective jurors based " 'solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State’s case against a black defendant’ ” (People v Scott, 70 NY2d 420, 425, quoting Batson v Kentucky, 476 US, at 89 , supra).

1989Numerous other rights of both constitutional and nonconstitutional dimension, however, have been held not to survive, including: the right to trial by a jury (Duncan v Lousiana, 391 US 145 ); the right to confrontation (Pointer v Texas, 380 US 400 ); the alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 , supra); an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ); or a challenge based on allegedly discriminatory composition of the Grand Jury (People v Siciliano, 40 NY2d 996 , rearg denied 41 NY2d 901 , appeal dismissed 430 US 9

1989Numerous other rights of both constitutional and nonconstitutional dimension, however, have been held not to survive, including: the right to trial by a jury (Duncan v Lousiana, 391 US 145 ); the right to confrontation (Pointer v Texas, 380 US 400 ); the alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 , supra); an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ); or a challenge based on allegedly discriminatory composition of the Grand Jury (People v Siciliano, 40 NY2d 996 , rearg denied 41 NY2d 901 , appeal dismissed 430 US 9

1989Numerous other rights of both constitutional and nonconstitutional dimension, however, have been held not to survive, including: the right to trial by a jury (Duncan v Lousiana, 391 US 145 ); the right to confrontation (Pointer v Texas, 380 US 400 ); the alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 , supra); an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ); or a challenge based on allegedly discriminatory composition of the Grand Jury (People v Siciliano, 40 NY2d 996 , rearg denied 41 NY2d 901 , appeal dismissed 430 US 9

1989Numerous other rights of both constitutional and nonconstitutional dimension, however, have been held not to survive, including: the right to trial by a jury (Duncan v Lousiana, 391 US 145 ); the right to confrontation (Pointer v Texas, 380 US 400 ); the alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 , supra); an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ); or a challenge based on allegedly discriminatory composition of the Grand Jury (People v Siciliano, 40 NY2d 996 , rearg denied 41 NY2d 901 , appeal dismissed 430 US 9

1985Examples include an alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 ); a claimed deficiency in a jurisdictionally sufficient accusatory instrument (People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008 ; People v Cohen, 52 NY2d 584 ); and an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ) or preindictment prosecutorial misconduct (People v Di Raffaele, 55 NY2d 234 ).

1985Examples include an alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 ); a claimed deficiency in a jurisdictionally sufficient accusatory instrument (People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008 ; People v Cohen, 52 NY2d 584 ); and an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ) or preindictment prosecutorial misconduct (People v Di Raffaele, 55 NY2d 234 ).

1985Examples include an alleged unconstitutional presumption in a statute (People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338 ); a claimed deficiency in a jurisdictionally sufficient accusatory instrument (People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008 ; People v Cohen, 52 NY2d 584 ); and an allegation of selective or vindictive prosecution (People v Rodriguez, 55 NY2d 776 ) or preindictment prosecutorial misconduct (People v Di Raffaele, 55 NY2d 234 ).

1984Courts in other States have in numerous cases applied these same principles in eliminating an unconstitutional exception from a criminal statute and thereby enlarging the scope of the statute. 15 The decision most similar factually to the present one comes from the Alaska Supreme Court in Pías v State ( 598 P2d 966 ).

1981Corp. ( 395 US 337 ).

1980Rush v Savchuk (supra) held that the Seider v Roth doctrine was an unconstitutional violation of due process where the defendant had no other contacts with the forum.

1979One such form, conditioning public employment on the surrender of this right, has therefore been held impermissible ( Elrod v Burns , 427 US 347 ; Keyishian v Board of Regents , 385 US 589 ; Matter of Board of Educ. v Helsby , 37 AD2d 493 , affd 32 N.Y.2d 660 , supra ).

1979One such form, conditioning public employment on the surrender of this right, has therefore been held impermissible (Elrod v Burns, 427 US 347 ; Keyishian v Board of Regents, 385 US 589 ; Matter of Board of Educ. v Helsby, 37 AD2d 493 , affd 32 NY2d 660 , supra).

1979One such form, conditioning public employment on the surrender of this right, has therefore been held impermissible ( Elrod v Burns , 427 US 347 ; Keyishian v Board of Regents , 385 US 589 ; Matter of Board of Educ. v Helsby , 37 AD2d 493 , affd 32 N.Y.2d 660 , supra ).

1979One such form, conditioning public employment on the surrender of this right, has therefore been held impermissible (Elrod v Burns, 427 US 347 ; Keyishian v Board of Regents, 385 US 589 ; Matter of Board of Educ. v Helsby, 37 AD2d 493 , affd 32 NY2d 660 , supra).