A.R. is the appellant and respondent of this particular case. The respondent and appellant of the matter is the City of New York.
Case Background
The plaintiff, A.R. was a college student in 1984 and was studying to be a teacher. He was employed part time at the Concourse Day Care Center as a teacher’s aide. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the claim against the plaintiff was made by a five year old child that attended the day care. The child had previous records of sexually provocative behavior and had previously fabricated a claim of sexual abuse against one of her classmates while attending the Day Care Center. The mother of the child is E.H.
On the 19th of February, 1984, either the child or the mother claimed that a classmate of the child had been sexually abusing her. HRA contacted the District Attorney’s office in the Bronx under an agreement that all claims of sexual abuse at a daycare center be reported to the D.A.’s office. The investigation unit of the HRA conducted an investigation where they interviewed the teachers and administrators of the day care center and evaluated the background of the child.
The child was seen by a doctor who determined that there were no signs of sexual abuse. It was also reported that the child had a history of exposing herself in class, masturbating openly in the classroom, and acted out intercourse with dolls and described sexual acts that she claimed to have seen on television. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the child denied any sexual abuse at first. At this time no further action was taken.
A short time later the mother reported that the child stated that someone named “A.” was the perpetrator of sexual abuse. The mother stated that her child told her that during nap time A. took her to the bathroom, put tape on her mouth, exposed his penis to her, put his finger in her vagina, and then tried to put his penis inside her (rape). The plaintiff was taken in for investigation at this time.
During his trial crucial evidence was left out of the reports and the plaintiff was eventually convicted of rape in the first degree. He received a sentence of 8 to 25 years. During this time he maintained that he was innocent.
The defense for the plaintiff was not given any of the information regarding the child’s precocious behaviors during class. In 1991, the plaintiff moved to have his conviction vacated on the evidence found in the seven documents that were not provided in his case. At this time the plaintiff had been in jail for seven years.
After the appropriate documents were filed and reviewed, the plaintiff was found to be innocent and the charges against him were dropped. The current case is a civil action against the City of New York asserting that a number of civil rights against the plaintiff were violated.
Court Discussion and Decision
Currently, the plaintiff is appealing a ruling from the Supreme Court that granted summary judgment in favor of the City of New York in the case for malicious prosecution. After carefully reviewing the history and arguments for this case we find that the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment and the order is reversed. The plaintiff will be given the right to proceed in this matter.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates is happy to discuss your legal issues with you. You may call one of our New York City offices to set up an appointment with one of our expert lawyers whether you have been charged with drug possession, theft, or sex crimes. We offer free consultations to anyone visiting our offices for the first time.