Page 41 - WCBA Appellate Practice Committee CLE May 2024-Handout

On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of that branch of his motion to controvert the search
warrant, contending that the warrant was not properly executed in the state as required by CPL 690.20(1)
and article VI, § 1(c) of the NY State Constitution because the warrant was executed at T-Mobile’s office
in New Jersey. The Second Department found that in determining where a search warrant is “executed”
within the meaning of the NY State Constitution and CPL 690.20(1), courts must look to where the actions
of the law enforcement officers took place. Here, the action of the subject law enforcement officer - the
act of faxing the search warrant to T-Mobile - took place in New York. Since the actions of the
government’s agents that encroached on the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights - the faxing of the
warrant - took place in New York, the Court concluded that is where the search warrant was executed,
and thus, there was no violation of the NY State Constitution or CPL 690.20(1). Therefore, because the
warrant was executed in Kings County, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, had jurisdiction to
issue the search warrant.

Fossella v Adams, 2024 NY Slip Op 00891 (February 2024) by Wooten, J.

This case concerns the validity of Local Law No. 11 (2022) of City of New York, which created a new class
of voters eligible to vote in municipal elections consisting of individuals who are not United States citizens
and who meet certain enumerated criteria. The plaintiffs, consisting of a group of individuals registered
to vote in the City of New York (hereinafter the voter plaintiffs), certain individuals who held or who had
recently been elected to public office (hereinafter the officeholder plaintiffs), and certain individuals and
entities representing the Republican Party (hereinafter the political party plaintiffs), commenced an
action against, among others, the Mayor of the City of New York and the City Council (hereinafter the City
defendants), seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring Local Law No. 11 (2022) of the City of New York
null and void on the grounds that it violates the New York State Constitution, the New York State Election
Law, and Municipal Home Rule Law, and permanently enjoining the implementation or enforcement of
the Local Law.

The complaint alleged that the Local Law will dramatically increase the pool of eligible voters, which will
dilute the votes of United States citizens, including the voter plaintiffs, and will cause an abrupt and
sizeable change to the makeup of the electorate, forcing the officeholder plaintiffs to change the way that
they campaign for office, and requiring the political party plaintiffs to adjust their strategies and how they
allocate their resources to help elect Republicans in New York. The first cause of action alleged that the
Local Law violates the NY State Constitution, which provides that local government officers and legislative
representatives must be elected by the People, defined as persons entitled to vote as provided in section
one of article two of the Constitution, consisting exclusively of citizens who meet certain criteria. The
second cause of action alleged that the Local Law violates, inter alia, NY State Election Law § 5-102(1),
which provides that no person shall be qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he is a
citizen of the United States. Finally, the third cause of action alleged that the Local Law violates Municipal
Home Rule Law § 23(2)(e) because it was enacted without a public referendum.

A group of noncitizen residents eligible to vote under the Local Law moved for leave to intervene as
defendants and the Supreme Court granted their unopposed motion. The City defendants moved for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, declaring that the Local Law is lawful and valid.
The intervenors separately moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint and, in effect, declaring that Local Law is lawful and valid. The intervenors also argued that the

38