George v State of New York

Holding The court held that Correction Law § 865 (1) is not facially unconstitutional because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Equal Rights Amendment was intended to apply retroactively to existing statutes. The court declined to address the level of scrutiny for age-based classifications, noting that the facial challenge failed on the basis of the statute’s prospective application.

The court’s words

The court holds that Correction Law § 865 (1) is not facially unconstitutional, as the plaintiff failed to meet the required standard of proof.

90 Misc 3d 372, at the official text

This court finds that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that Correction Law § 865 (1) is facially unconstitutional

90 Misc 3d 372, at the official text

The language in both the Equal Rights Amendment and the Sponsor’s Memorandum is prospective language that applies to future government action

90 Misc 3d 372, at the official text

This court declines to address whether article I, § 11 is self-executing, or which level of scrutiny applies to age-based classifications

90 Misc 3d 372, at the official text