People v. Assi, 15 N.Y.3d 334 (2010)

New York’s Hate Crimes Act applies to property crimes, such as arson, when the crime is motivated by animus toward a protected group, and the effective date of a statute is determined by the legislature, not altered by general construction laws regarding deadlines.

Summary

Assi was convicted of attempted arson as a hate crime for attempting to burn down a synagogue. He argued the Hate Crimes Act didn’t apply to property crimes and that the Act wasn’t in effect on the day of the incident due to a Sunday/holiday technicality. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Hate Crimes Act does apply to property crimes motivated by bias and that the legislature’s designated effective date stands regardless of conflicting general construction laws. This case clarifies the scope and application of hate crime statutes in New York.

Facts

Police officers observed Assi and others near a synagogue at 3:00 a.m. Later that morning, a congregant discovered the synagogue’s front door shattered. Police found broken bottles fashioned into Molotov cocktails, along with latex gloves and a towel. Assi confessed to participating in the attempted arson, motivated by anger over the Israeli army’s shooting of a Palestinian child. He stated the “rich Jews in Riverdale” were funding the violence and that the arson was intended to “make a statement.”

Procedural History

Assi and a co-defendant were indicted on charges including attempted arson and criminal mischief as hate crimes. The Supreme Court denied a motion to dismiss the hate crime charges. Assi was convicted and sentenced. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the New York Hate Crimes Act applies to property crimes, such as attempted arson, motivated by animus toward a religious group.

2. Whether General Construction Law §§ 20 and 25-a alter the legislatively determined effective date of the Hate Crimes Act.

Holding

1. Yes, because the Penal Law defines “person” to include associations and corporations, encompassing religious institutions, and the Hate Crimes Act specifically applies to offenses motivated by bias against a person’s religion.

2. No, because the Legislature has the authority to determine when an act takes effect, and the General Construction Law sections relate to calculating deadlines, not altering the legislative intent regarding a law’s effective date.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that Penal Law § 10.00(7) defines “person” broadly to include corporations and associations, which includes religious organizations like the synagogue. Penal Law § 485.05(1)(b) applies to specified offenses, including property crimes, that are motivated by a belief or perception of another person’s religion. The legislative history of the Hate Crimes Act also indicates that it was intended to apply to property crimes motivated by bias. The Court directly quoted legislative findings stating that criminal acts involving the “destruction of property” can qualify as hate crimes.

Regarding the effective date, the Court noted that under common law and Legislative Law § 43, a law takes effect on the date specified by the legislature. General Construction Law §§ 20 and 25-a, which address calculating deadlines for actions, do not override the legislature’s power to determine when a law becomes effective. The Court stated that the General Construction Law applies to situations that involve calculating a deadline, such as filing legal papers, and do not alter the legislature’s exclusive power to determine when its legislation will become effective.