Jackanin v. Carey

E.D. New York

Jackanin v. Carey

476 F. Supp. 420, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9678

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedSeptember 20, 1979

Docket79 C 1462

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 476 F. Supp. 420 (Jackanin v. Carey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackanin v. Carey, 476 F. Supp. 420, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9678 (E.D.N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

COSTANTINO, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Paul Jackanin, challenges the constitutionality of the New York State Judiciary Law § 510(3) on the grounds that it deprives him of equal protection of the laws and infringes his privileges and immunities under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Judiciary Law § 510(3) requires jurors to be in possession of their natural faculties. Plaintiff is blind and was disqualified from serving as a juror as a result. His disqualification is the basis for his challenge. The defendant argues that the issue does not raise a constitutional question and moves to dismiss the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The motion is granted.

In Lewinson v. Crews, 49 Misc.2d 1050, 269 N.Y.S.2d 185 (Sup.Ct.1967), aff'd, 28 A.D.2d 111, 282 N.Y.S.2d 83 (2d Dept.1967), aff'd, 21 N.Y.2d 898, 289 N.Y.S.2d 619, 236 N.E.2d 853 (1968), appeal dismissed, 393 U.S. 13, 89 S.Ct. 46, 21 L.Ed.2d 12 (1968), the courts consistently held that the statute was a proper exercise of legislative power and upheld the dismissal of a petition challenging it. The appeal to the United States Supreme Court was dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question, 393 U.S. 13, 89 S.Ct. 46, 21 L.Ed.2d 12, although a challenge based on the equal protection and privilege and immunities clauses was raised and rejected by the New York State Court of Appeals. 21 N.Y.2d 898, 289 N.Y.S.2d 619, 236 N.E.2d 853. Thus, the determination by the Supreme Court requires a dismissal here. Cf. Connor v. Hutto, 516 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1975); United States ex rel. Epton v. Nenna, 446 F.2d 363 (2d Cir. 1971). See also Eckstein v. Kirby, 452 F.Supp. 1235 (E.D.Ark.1978).

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. 1

So ordered.

1

. In reaching this decision, however, the court notes that New York State has a blind judge sitting in its courts, the Hon. Gilbert Ramirez. Thus, from a policy standpoint it seems anomalous to exclude a blind juror from a case while allowing a blind judge to preside over the same case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

COSTANTINO, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Paul Jackanin, challenges the constitutionality of the New York State Judiciary Law § 510(3) on the grounds that it deprives him of equal protection of the laws and infringes his privileges and immunities under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Judiciary Law § 510(3) requires jurors to be in possession of their natural faculties. Plaintiff is blind and was disqualified from serving as a juror as a result. His disqualification is the basis for his challenge. The defendant argues that the issue does not raise a constitutional question and moves to dismiss the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The motion is granted.

In Lewinson v. Crews, 49 Misc.2d 1050, 269 N.Y.S.2d 185 (Sup.Ct.1967), aff'd, 28 A.D.2d 111, 282 N.Y.S.2d 83 (2d Dept.1967), aff'd, 21 N.Y.2d 898, 289 N.Y.S.2d 619, 236 N.E.2d 853 (1968), appeal dismissed, 393 U.S. 13, 89 S.Ct. 46, 21 L.Ed.2d 12 (1968), the courts consistently held that the statute was a proper exercise of legislative power and upheld the dismissal of a petition challenging it. The appeal to the United States Supreme Court was dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question, 393 U.S. 13, 89 S.Ct. 46, 21 L.Ed.2d 12, although a challenge based on the equal protection and privilege and immunities clauses was raised and rejected by the New York State Court of Appeals. 21 N.Y.2d 898, 289 N.Y.S.2d 619, 236 N.E.2d 853. Thus, the determination by the Supreme Court requires a dismissal here. Cf. Connor v. Hutto, 516 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1975); United States ex rel. Epton v. Nenna, 446 F.2d 363 (2d Cir. 1971). See also Eckstein v. Kirby, 452 F.Supp. 1235 (E.D.Ark.1978).

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. 1

So ordered.

1

. In reaching this decision, however, the court notes that New York State has a blind judge sitting in its courts, the Hon. Gilbert Ramirez. Thus, from a policy standpoint it seems anomalous to exclude a blind juror from a case while allowing a blind judge to preside over the same case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 F. Supp. 420, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackanin-v-carey-nyed-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack