Page 35 - WCBA Appellate Practice Committee CLE May 2024-Handout

sex couple, their marriage would have been recognized as valid despite their failure to obtain a marriage
license. For the purposes of equitable distribution, the date of the parties’ marriage would have been
the date of the religious ceremony, not the date the parties obtained their marriage license. This Court
found that nothing in the record suggested that the parties’ marriage was not otherwise valid prior to
the enactment of the MEA. Moreover, this Court noted that there is a compelling basis for retroactive
application of the MEA. Although the MEA contains no express language mandating retroactive
application, the express legislative intent, to provide equal treatment under the law to all persons
married in New York State, indicates it is a remedial statute and that its statutory amendments are
eligible for retroactive application. This Court noted that the MEA codified the recognition by New York
Courts of valid, out-of-state, same-sex marriages entered into prior to its passage, without need for the
parties to obtain a newly valid New York marriage license. Additionally, the New York State Department
of Tax and Finance permitted such couples to amend their tax returns filed prior to the MEA to revise
their filing status to “married.” In considering the treatment of same-sex couples married outside New
York, the legislative history of the MEA, and the constitutional protections afforded to the right to
marry, this Court found that the MEA should be applied retroactively to recognize the parties’ 2005
marriage. Thus, the defendant’s proposed amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently
devoid of merit. As to prejudice, this Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the
defendant’s proposed amendment was prejudicial to her. The length of time between the defendant’s
original answer and her motion for leave to amend and the potential effect on the plaintiff’s
maintenance and equitable distribution obligations were insufficient to establish prejudice to the
plaintiff.

Matter of Sarkodie v Kings County Dist. Attorney, 2024 NY Slip Op 00908 [February 21, 2024] [Justice
Wan opinion; Justices Duffy, Wooten, and Taylor concur]

HOLDING: In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of certain records
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law article 6)(hereinafter FOI), this Court
reversed a judgment of the Supreme Court which denied the petition and dismissing the proceeding.
This Court determined that because the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(hereinafter EDNY) instituted a stay and abeyance of the federal habeas proceeding, the petitioner’s
request would not have interfered with that proceeding. Thus, the respondent Kings County District
Attorney’s Office failed to establish that the records sought were exempt from disclosure under Public
Officers Law § 87(2)(e)(I).

FACTS: The petitioner was convicted, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal
possession of a weapon in the second degree. He was sentenced to an aggregate indeterminate term of
imprisonment of 25 years to life. On direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, this Court reduced
the petitioner’s sentence on the conviction of murder in the second degree to an indeterminate term of
imprisonment of 20 years to life. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request to the respondent pursuant
to FOIL for any and all material related to his case. While the FOIL request was pending, the petitioner,
pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition in the EDNY. The petitioner’s counsel filed a second habeas corpus
petition in the EDNY, which was consolidated with the petitioner’s pro se petition. The EDNY
acknowledged that the petitioner’s federal habeas proceeding contain both exhausted and unexhausted
claims. It found that the petitioner’s unexhausted claims were not plainly meritless. As a result, the

32