THE PEOPLE &C. EX REL. MICHAEL HARDY, O/B/O GERALD MILLER,APPELLANT v. ALLYN
R. SIELAFF, &C., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
79 N.Y.2d 618, 595 N.E.2d 817, 584 N.Y.S.2d 742 (1992).
June 4, 1992
2 No. 102
Decided June 4, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Michael A. Hardy, for Appellant.
Robin A. Forshaw, for Respondent District Attorney.
WACHTLER, CH. J.:
At issue in this habeas corpus proceeding is the validity of the
distinction drawn in CPL 500.10 (17) between personal property and
real property for the purpose of securing a bail bond. CPL 500.10
(17)(a) provides that non-exempt personal property may be used as
security if its net value is equal to or greater than the total amount
of the undertaking. CPL 500.10 (17)(b), on the other hand, requires
that, for real property to be used as security, its net value must be
at least twice the total amount of the undertaking.
In the underlying criminal proceeding, the defendant sought to post a
bail bond secured by several parcels of real property, the aggregate
value of which, he acknowledged, was insufficient to satisfy the
double equity requirement of CPL 500.10 (17)(b). He contended,
however, that the requirement was unconstitutional. After Supreme
Court rejected his arguments, he commenced this habeas corpus
proceeding in the Appellate Divi- sion, Second Department, renewing
his constitutional arguments and seeking a reduction in bail. The
Appellate Division dis- missed the proceeding without opinion.
Relator relies primarily upon People v Burton (150 Misc 2d 214), which
held that the double equity requirement of CPL 500.10 (17)(b) was
irrational and therefore unconstitutional. In Burton, the court first
rejected the defendant's contention that, for purposes of equal
protection analysis, the distinction between personal property and
real property should be subjected to strict scrutiny, concluding that
the distinction implicated neither a suspect classification nor a
fundamental right (150 Misc 2d at 221-222). After tracing the history
of the double equity requirement, however, the court concluded that
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
At issue in this habeas corpus proceeding is the validity of the distinction drawn in CPL
CPL 500.10 provides that non-exempt personal property may be used as security if its net
In the underlying criminal proceeding, the defendant sought to post a bail bond secured by
After Supreme Court rejected his arguments, he commenced this habeas corpus proceeding in the
Relator relies primarily upon People v Burton (150 Misc 2d 214), which held that the double
In Burton, the court first rejected the defendant's contention that, for purposes of equal
After tracing the history of the double equity requirement, however, the court concluded that
The legislative history recounted by the court in People v Burton reveals that the
A court, in the context of entertaining a bail application, cannot be expected to employ the
the costs and difficulties of a foreclosure justify granting real property less than full
Furthermore, up to $10,000 in value of real property owned and occupied as a principal
Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
|
