COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of a Proceeding under Article 70 of the CPLR for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on Index Nos. 162358/15 behalf of TOMMY, (New York County); Petitioner-Appellant, 150149/16 (New York -against- County) PATRICK C. LAVERY, individually and as an of Circle L Trailer Sales, Inc., DIANE LAVERY, and CIRCLE L TRAILER SALES, INC., Respondents-Respondents, THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on behalf of KIKO, Petitioner-Appellant, -against- CARMEN PRESTI, individually and as an officer and director of The Primate Sanctuary, Inc., CHRISTIE E. PRESTI, individually and as an officer and director of The Primate Sanctuary, Inc., and THE PRIMATE SANCTUARY, INC., Respondents-Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS Elizabeth Stein, Esq. Steven M. Wise, Esq. 5 Dunhill Road (of the Bar of the State of New Hyde Park, New York Massachusetts) 11040 By Permission of the Court (516) 747-4726 5195 NW 112th Terrace [email protected] Coral Springs, Florida 33076 (954) 648-9864 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Authorities ................................................................................... iv Argument .................................................................................................... 1 I. Preliminary Statement ............................................................... 1 II. Statement of the Issues .............................................................. 3 III. Standard of Review ..................................................................... 4 IV. The novel and important questions raised in this appeal require review by the Court of Appeals ......................... 5 A. This case presents novel and important issues of law of statewide, national, and international significance .......................................................................... 5 B. The question of who is a “person,” and the extent to which “personhood” might be limited by one’s capacity to bear duties and responsibilities, is perhaps the most important question that could come before a court ........................... 13 C. The complex questions of law and fact raised in this appeal require review by the Court of Appeals ............................................................................... 24 V. The Decision requires review by the Court of Appeals to resolve the conflicts it creates with CPLR Article 70 as interpreted by New York Courts ............. 26 A. The legality of Tommy’s and Kiko’s detention has never been determined by a court of New York State in any proceeding and the ends of justice will only be served by issuing the orders to show cause ..................................................................... 28 ii B. The second petitions presented grounds not previously presented and determined .............................. 32 VI. The Decision conflicts with this Court’s decisions, the decisions of the First Department, and the decisions of other Appellate Departments .............................. 39 A. The First Department’s Decision conflicts with this Court’s ruling in Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, 31 N.Y.2d 194 (1972) ........................................................................... 40 B. The First Department’s statement that the determination of who is a “person” under the common law is better suited to the legislature, and that CPLR Article 70 codified the common law of habeas corpus, conflicts with precedent of this Court and the First and Second Departments ...................................................................... 47 1. The common law writ of habeas corpus has not been codified by legislation .................................. 47 2. New York courts have a duty to reevaluate the common law classification of all nonhuman animals as things for the purposes of the common law writ of habeas corpus, and cannot merely defer to the legislature ................................................................... 50 C. The Decision’s holding that habeas corpus is limited to unconditional release conflicts with decades of Court of Appeals and Appellate Department precedent ..................................................... 54 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 62 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Affronti v. Crosson, 95 N.Y.2d 713 (2001), cert. den., 534 U.S. 826 (2001) .................. 22, 37 Allen v. New York State Div. of Parole, 252 A.D.2d 691 (3d Dept. 1998) ........................................................... 31 Application of Mitchell,, 421 N.Y.S.2d 443, 444 (4th Dept. 1979) ................................................................................... 61 Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656 (1957) .............................................................................. 53 Board of Educ. of Monroe-Woodbury Cent. School Dist. v. Wieder, 72 N.Y.2d 174 (1988) ............................................................................ 23 Brevorka ex rel. Wittle v. Schuse, 227 A.D.2d 969 (4th Dept. 1996) ......................................................... 55 Brown v. Muniz, 61 A.D.3d 526 (1st Dept. 2009) ............................................................ 39 Byrn v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 31 N.Y. 2d 194 (1972) ................................................................... passim Caceci v. Do Canto, Const. Corp., 72 N.Y.2d 52 (1988) .............................................................................. 52 Callan v. Callan, 494 N.Y.S.2d 32 (2d Dept. 1985) ......................................................... 61 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) ................................................................................ 21 Flanagan v. Mount Eden General Hospital, 24 N.Y. 2d 427 (1969) ........................................................................... 51 iv Forbes v. Cochran, 107, Eng. Rep. 450, 467 (K.B. 1824) .................................................... 46 Gallagher v. St. Raymond’s R.C. Church, 21 N.Y.2d 554 (1968) ............................................................................ 52 Gilman v. McCardle, 65 How. Pr. 330 (N.Y. Super. 1883), rev. on other grounds, 99 N.Y. 451 (1885) ................................................................................ 46 Greenburg v. Lorenz, 9 N.Y. 2d 195 (1961) ............................................................................. 53 Griffin v. Marquardt, 17 N.Y. 28 (1858) .................................................................................... 4 Guice v. Charles Schwab & Co., 89 N.Y.2d 31 (1996) .......................................................................... 5, 39 Hamilton v. Miller, 23 N.Y.3d 592 (2014) ............................................................................ 24 Hoff v. State of New York, 279 N.Y. 490 (1939) .............................................................................. 49 Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N.Y. 420 (1891) ................................................................................ 4 In re Belt, 2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 93 (Sup. Ct. 1848) .................................................... 46 In re Cecelia, Third Court of Guarantees, Mendoza, Argentina, File No. P-72.254/15 at 22-23 ............................................................................ 13 In re Cecilia, File No. P-72.254/15 ............................................................................. 45 In re Fouts, 677 N.Y.S.2d 699 (Sur. 1998) .............................................................. 46 v In re Goodell, 39 Wis. 232 (1875) ................................................................................ 21 In re Henry, 1865 WL 3392 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1865) .................................................... 61 In re Hong Yen Chang, 60 Cal. 4th 1169 (Cal. 2015) ................................................................ 21 In re Kirk, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 315 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1846) .......................................... 46 In re Mickel, 14 Johns. 324 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1817) ..................................................... 42 In re Shannon B., 70 N.Y.2d 458 (1987) .............................................................................. 5 In re Storar, 52 N.Y.2d 363 (1981), cert. den., 454 U.S. 858 (1981) ........................ 22 In re Tom, 5 Johns. 365 (N.Y. 1810) ...................................................................... 46 Jarman v. Patterson, 23 Ky. 644 (1828) ................................................................................. 42 Lemmon v. People, 20 N.Y. 562 (1860) .................................................................... 17, 46, 55 Lenzner v. Falk, 68 N.Y.S.2d 699 (Sup. Ct. 1947) .......................................................... 46 Lewis v. Burger King, 344 Fed. Appx. 470 [10th Cir 2009], cert. denied, 558 U.S. 1125 [2010] ................................................................ 50, 53, 54 Lunney v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 94 N.Y.2d 242 (1999) ............................................................................ 24 Matter of Ferrara, 2006 NY Slip Op 5156, 7 N.Y.3d 244 (2006) ......................................... 4 vi Matter of George L., 85 N.Y.2d 295 (1995) ...........................................................................