Myers v. Schneiderman

Decision Date03 May 2016
Docket Number151162/15, 310
Citation2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03457,31 N.Y.S.3d 45,140 A.D.3d 51
PartiesSara MYERS, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Eric SCHNEIDERMAN, etc., Defendant–Respondent, Janet DiFiore, etc., et al., Defendants. New York Catholic Conference, Not Dead Yet, Adapt, Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Center for Disability Rights, Disability Rights Center, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, National Counsel on Independent Living, New York Association on Independent Living, Regional Center for Independent Living and United Spinal Association, Amici Curiae.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

140 A.D.3d 51
31 N.Y.S.3d 45
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03457

Sara MYERS, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
Eric SCHNEIDERMAN, etc., Defendant–Respondent,

Janet DiFiore, etc., et al., Defendants.


New York Catholic Conference, Not Dead Yet, Adapt, Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Center for Disability Rights, Disability Rights Center, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, National Counsel on Independent Living, New York Association on Independent Living, Regional Center for Independent Living and United Spinal Association, Amici Curiae.

151162/15, 310

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

May 3, 2016.


31 N.Y.S.3d 47

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York (Edwin G. Schallert, Jared I. Kagan, Xiyun Yang and Lucila I.M. Hemmingsen of counsel), and Disability Rights Legal Center, Los Angeles, CA (Kathryn L. Tucker of the bar of the State of Washington, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellants.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Anisha S. Dasgupta, Holly A. Thomas and Steven C. Wu of counsel), for respondent.

Edward T. Mechmann, New York and Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, New York (Neil M. Merkl of counsel), for New York Catholic Conference, amicus curiae.

Michael Gilberg, Granite Springs, and Stephen F. Gold of the bar of the State of Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice, for Not Dead Yet, Adapt, Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Center for Disability Rights, Disability Rights Center, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, National Council on Independent Living, New York Association on Independent Living, Regional Center for Independent Living and United Spinal Association, amici curiae.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, JJ.

MAZZARELLI, J.

140 A.D.3d 53

Nearly 20 years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that New York's prohibition against assisting one who attempts suicide does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when enforced against a physician who assists in hastening the death, through the prescription of lethal medication, of a mentally competent, terminally ill patient who is suffering great pain and desires to die (Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 117 S.Ct. 2293, 138 L.Ed.2d 834 [1997] ). The Supreme Court also held, in an opinion published the same day as Vacco, that Washington State's own ban on assisted suicide (since overturned by legislation in that state), considered in the same context, does not violate substantive due process under the U.S. Constitution (Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 711, 117 S.Ct. 2302, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 [1997] ). Now, a group of plaintiffs composed of physicians, patients and

140 A.D.3d 54

advocates for the terminally ill, including some who were plaintiffs in Vacco, seek a declaration that the ban on physician assisted suicide, which they call “aid-in-dying” (a term we use here) violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the State Constitution. They also seek a declaration that, as a matter of statutory construction, the relevant Penal Law provisions are not applicable to aid-in-dying.

Plaintiffs in this case are Sara Myers, a terminally ill person, Eric Seiff, who suffers from an illness that he is concerned may progress to a terminal stage, five medical professionals who regularly treat terminally ill patients, and End of Life Choices New York, a not-for-profit organization that provides its clients with information and counseling on informed choices in end-of-life decision-making.1 Plaintiffs

31 N.Y.S.3d 48

maintain that, without a declaration to the contrary, the named physicians would be subject to criminal prosecution if they took steps to carry out the wish of their patients to hasten their deaths, and put an end to unbearable physical pain, by prescribing lethal medication. Plaintiffs presume that any such prosecution would be based on section 120.30 of the Penal Law, which provides that “[a] person is guilty of promoting a suicide attempt when he intentionally causes or aids another person to attempt suicide,” and section 125.15(3), which provides that “[a] person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when,” among other things, “[h]e intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.” Plaintiffs initially named the Attorney General and the District Attorneys of various counties in New York State. However, plaintiffs discontinued the action against the District Attorneys upon the District Attorneys' stipulation to be bound by any result reached in the litigation.

The complaint asserts that the physician plaintiffs have been deterred by the relevant provisions of the Penal Law from providing aid-in-dying to terminally ill and mentally competent persons who have no chance of recovery and for whom medicine cannot offer any hope other than some degree of symptomatic relief. They assert that the authorities wrongly consider aid-in-dying to be “assisted suicide,” but that in fact it is starkly distinct from it. The complaint alleges that “[o]ver the past eighteen years, an increasing number of States and jurisdictions

140 A.D.3d 55

have legalized aid-in-dying through judicial decisions and legislation,” and submit that “evolving medical standards and public views support aid-in-dying.” It further alleges that the physician plaintiffs all believe that “it would be consistent with the highest standards of medical practice to assist and counsel mentally-competent, terminally-ill patients ... in their decision to seek a peaceful death through aid-in-dying.”

The Attorney General moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (7) and the court granted the motion. The court disagreed with the Attorney General's argument that the claims were not justiciable and that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. However, it rejected plaintiffs' claim that the Penal Law should be interpreted not to apply to aid-in-dying, stating that the Penal Law as written is clear and concise, rendering unnecessary any resort to an analysis of its legislative history. The court found that the constitutional claims were controlled by Vacco, and by Matter of Bezio v. Dorsey , 21 N.Y.3d 93, 967 N.Y.S.2d 660, 989 N.E.2d 942 (2013), in which the Court of Appeals referenced the State's constitutionally-permissible distinction, recognized in Vacco, between the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to commit suicide or receive assistance in doing so.

On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the court should not have dismissed the complaint because it, along with affidavits submitted by three of the medical professional plaintiffs (including their voluminous exhibits), asserted factual allegations that, on their face, stated a claim for the requested relief. They contend that the court lacked the power to disregard factual statements pronouncing, for example, that professional organizations such as the American Public Health Association do not consider aid-in-dying to be equivalent to suicide, and that death certificates in Oregon and Washington, where aid-in-dying has been deemed lawful, list the cause of death as the underlying disease causing the patient's suffering, not the lethal medication administered to him or her. They further argue that the court ignored their allegation that aid-in-dying is indistinguishable

31 N.Y.S.3d 49

from other medical practices that are universally recognized as not constituting suicide, such as terminal sedation, in which a patient is placed in a deep sedation while food and fluids are withheld. Plaintiffs further contend that the court misapprehended their argument concerning the Penal Law sections at issue. They challenge the court's approach, which looked at the meaning of the language in the statutes. Instead, they maintain that the prohibition

140 A.D.3d 56

against assisted suicide simply does not apply to aid-in-dying, which they assert was not even a recognized concept in 1965, when the statutes were enacted in their current form.

As for plaintiffs' State Constitution-based claims, they principally argue that the court overlooked that New York has long recognized the existence of a person's fundamental right to self-determination over his or her own body and the type of medical treatment he or she receives. Thus, they assert, to the extent that the Penal Law does prohibit aid-in-dying, the law must be strictly scrutinized and may only be enforced in that context if it can be said to be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest. Even if a fundamental right is not at issue, plaintiffs contend, their complaint establishes sufficient factual allegations such that discovery should proceed on the issue of whether the relevant statutory sections are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Plaintiffs further claim that the court failed to distinguish between their equal protection and substantive due process claims, addressing only the former. To the extent that, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Myers v. Schneiderman
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 7 September 2017
    ...who provide aid-in-dying and that the statutes do not violate the State Constitution, and as so modified, affirmed ( 140 A.D.3d 51, 65, 31 N.Y.S.3d 45 [1st Dept.2016] ). Plaintiffs appealed to this Court as of right, pursuant to CPLR 5601(b)(1).On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the State's a......
  • Myers v. Schneiderman
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 7 September 2017
    ...who provide aid-in-dying and that the statutes do not violate the State Constitution, and as so modified, affirmed ( 140 A.D.3d 51, 65, 31 N.Y.S.3d 45 [1st Dept.2016] ). Plaintiffs appealed to this Court as of right, pursuant to CPLR 5601(b)(1).On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the State's a......
  • Brooklyn Lab. Charter Sch. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 2 August 2017
    ...Access Officer, Civilian Complaint Review Bd. , 150 A.D.3d 13, 19, 51 N.Y.S.3d 46 (1st Dep't 2017) ; Myers v. Schneiderman , 140 A.D.3d 51, 56, 31 N.Y.S.3d 45 (1st Dep't 2016). If a statute does not define a term, the court must construe "words of ordinary import ‘with their usual and commo......
  • Freidman v. N.Y.C. Taxi & Limousine Comm'n
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 May 2016
    ...for municipal respondents.Murtha Cullina LLP, White Plains (David P. Friedman of counsel), for Transportation General, Inc., respondent.31 N.Y.S.3d 45 TOM, J.P., RENWICK, RICHTER, KAPNICK, WEBBER, JJ.139 A.D.3d 405 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered July 1,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • AN UNFORTUNATE MISSTEP: THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS' REJECTION OF AID-IN-DYING IN MYERS V. SCHNEIDERMAN.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 81 No. 4, June 2018
    • 22 June 2018
    ...2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3770, at *10-11, *12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 16, 2015) (citations omitted). (7) See Myers v. Schneiderman, 31 N.Y.S.3d 45, 55-56 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) (citing N.Y. PENAL LAW [section][section] 120.30, 125.15 (McKinney (8) See id. at 50, 52-53, 55-56 (citations omitted). (9......
  • PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE AND THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 81 No. 4, June 2018
    • 22 June 2018
    ...in both the trial court and on appeal that are not of interest to this article. See id. at *4-5. (25) See Myers v. Schneiderman, 31 N.Y.S.3d 45, 49 (App. Div. (26) See id. at 55-56. (27) See Myers v. Schneiderman, 85 N.E.3d 57, 61 (N.Y. 2017). (28) See Casey C. Sullivan, The Sixth Circuit I......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT