Kuriansky v. Bed-Stuy Health Care Corp., 73 N.Y.2d 875 (1989)
A party must properly raise and preserve a constitutional challenge at the trial level to allow for appellate review; broad assertions of constitutional violations are insufficient.
Summary
This case concerns the propriety of provisional remedies (attachment and preliminary injunction) obtained by the plaintiff in a civil forfeiture action. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff made a sufficient showing to justify the provisional remedies. Furthermore, the Court held that the defendants’ claim that conditioning relief from the provisional restraints upon disclosure of potentially incriminating financial information violated their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights was not preserved for appellate review, as the argument was not specifically raised and ruled upon in the lower courts. A general assertion of Fifth Amendment rights was deemed insufficient. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.
Facts
The specific facts underlying the forfeiture action against Bed-Stuy Health Care Corp. are not detailed in this memorandum opinion. However, the plaintiffs sought and obtained provisional remedies, including attachments and preliminary injunctions, to restrain the defendants’ assets during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings. The defendants sought relief from these restraints, arguing that doing so would violate their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ motions for provisional relief. The defendants appealed, arguing that conditioning relief from the provisional restraints upon the disclosure of potentially incriminating financial information was precluded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s order. The defendants then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants adequately preserved their claim that conditioning relief from provisional restraints upon the disclosure of potentially incriminating financial information violated their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, thus entitling them to appellate review of that claim.
Holding
No, because the defendants did not specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege or raise the argument they now advance on appeal in the lower courts. The Court of Appeals held that a broad assertion of Fifth Amendment violations was insufficient to preserve the specific argument for appellate review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals based its decision on the principle of preservation of issues for appellate review. The Court stated that “the record does not demonstrate either that defendants ever actually attempted to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege or that they made the argument they now advance on appeal.” The Court emphasized that the defendants only broadly argued that “CPLR Article 13-A violates defendants’ Fifth Amendment rights,” which was insufficient to preserve the specific argument regarding the disclosure of financial information as a condition for relief from the provisional restraints. Because the issue was not properly raised and ruled upon in the lower courts, the Court of Appeals declined to address the merits of the constitutional claim. This holding reinforces the importance of raising specific legal arguments and creating a clear record in the lower courts to preserve those arguments for appellate review. This is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure and ensures that the trial court has the initial opportunity to address and rule upon the legal issues presented.