New York

Published on: July 23, 2012

Court Decides jurisdiction Between State and Federal Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the matter is the Greenview Trading Company. The defendants in the matter are Hershman & Leicher, P.C., Harold M. Hershman, Indu Craft, PLC of New York, Incorporated, and Richard Rottman. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Supreme Court in the state of New York located in New York County. The acting justice in the case is David B. Saxe.

The question before the court in this case is whether state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts to hear private civil actions regarding damages under the RICO act, or are these actions only within the federal domain.

Case Background

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Defines Meaning of Criminal Enterprise

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a criminal case about the defendants who were indicted for forty one counts of Enterprise Corruption, Bribing a Labor Official, Bribe receiving by a Labor Official, and various Labor Law violations. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendants moved for inspection of the grand jury minutes and dismissal of the indictment, specifically for dismissal of Count One, (the Enterprise Corruption count) on various grounds.

The indictment was based on an investigation of the Carpenters’ Union. A Union Official was caught receiving a bribe and thereafter agreed to cooperate with the district attorney’s office. The prosecution contends that the defendants and the Union official were a group of persons engaged in a “criminal enterprise.” The defendants assisted each other to arrange or commit bribery from contractors to the Union Official to influence him to condone various violations of labor laws.

Count One charges the crime of Enterprise Corruption in violation of Article 460 of the Penal Law. Article 460, part of the New York “Organized Crime Control Act” (“OCCA”), was inspired by the federal “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations” Act (RICO). 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. (Cf. Penal Law Article 460 at 552, McKinney’s Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 39, ed. Donnino, Practice Commentaries).

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Discusses Recidivism

by Stephen Bilkis

There are statutory laws in New York that provide for the prosecution of felony offenders. The New York Legislature designed these laws to provide stiffer penalties to offenders who have been charged with felony crimes in the past. A felony crime is any crime that the courts have deemed more serious. They are generally defined as any crime in which the penalty is more than one year of incarceration or more than a $2,000.00 fine. Felony theft offenses are offenses that involve high dollar theft. In most states, that is defined as any amount greater than $500.00. However, some states make it a felony to steal any amount over $250.00. If a person enters an automobile to steal something, it does not matter what the value is, or if the car is open or locked, the offense is a felony. Entering the building or dwelling house of another is also a felony. Stealing a car or joyriding in a car is a felony. Some assaults and batteries are considered felonies as well. Rape, sodomy, forcible sodomy, child molestation, child abuse, kidnapping, and numerous other offenses are also felonies.

The New York legislature wanted to send a message to anyone who was a repeat offender of felony crimes that each time the re-offend, or recidivate, the punishment for their crimes will also increase. Because, predicate felony convictions can make such a difference in the punishment that an offender receives, it is in an offender’s best interest to ensure that the prosecution is equipped with the correct information about their predicate offenses. Also, because each state determines felony convictions differently, it is possible that a person who has been charged with a felony in a state other than New York, may have that felony conviction used to determine that he is a felony recidivist.

The question of law arises when the felony crime that the offender was convicted of in another state, would not be considered a felony in the state of New York. One such offender was convicted of a predicate felony in the State of Maryland. He was later convicted of a felony in the state of New York. The prosecution determined that his sentence should be established under the second felony offender as it is written in Penal Law § 70.06(1)(b)(i). However, the offense that was a felony in the State of Maryland, had it been committed in the state of New York, would not have been considered a felony. The prosecution considered that the offense should be considered a predicate felony for the purposes of sentencing this offender. The offender disagrees. He contends that his conviction in Maryland, would not have been a felony if he had committed it in New York. Therefore, in New York, he has not committed a predicate felony offense.

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Discusses Jury Selection

by Stephen Bilkis

When a person is charged with a felony crime, their case is sent to a Grand Jury in most states before the indictment is confirmed and sent to trial. The Grand Jury is a group of jurors who review the circumstances surrounding a case and determine with the guidance of the prosecutor from the District Attorney’s office if the elements of the crime have been met to proceed with a prosecution. At each stage of a criminal trial, there are requirements that must be met in order for the state to prosecute a person for the commission of a crime.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said these steps are important to protect the rights of every citizen in the United States. While it may seem to some that criminals are provided with too many rights and the ability to escape justice based on mistakes that are made by the prosecution team, it is important to remember that these safeguards are in place to enable a defense team to protect an innocent person from being incarcerated for a crime that they did not commit. At any stage of a criminal prosecution, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. The job of the defense attorney is to protect the rights of all citizens by ensuring that the prosecution is not allowed to circumvent the safeguards that the legislature has placed in effect. Toward this end, many times defense attorneys notice improprieties in legal process that could have long reaching effects on all people.

One case of this type was heard in New York on March 17, 1975. In this case, the defense team noticed that the statutory requirements that were on the law books were not being followed by the Kings County New York court system. The process for the selection of grand jurors was detailed in the Judiciary Law § 609. The statute requires that the county clerk of each county must make an investigation of persons who are qualified to serve as trial jurors. The clerk will then require that the jurors provide legible fingerprints of both hands in order to ensure that they have not been convicted of any felony and certain misdemeanor charges in the state of New York. In this statute, the wording of the statute itself refers to the juror pool as applicants for the Grand Jury.

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Decides Wire Fraud Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs and appellants in the matter are B.B.C.F.D., S.A., etc., et al. The defendants and respondents in the case are Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., et al., and Mina Persyko. The case is being heard in the First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The plaintiff in this matter is seeking to appeal a verdict that was made on the 7th of November, 2008. The previous order dismissed some of the claims that were made by the plaintiff and denied the motion from the plaintiff to recall and modify the complaint.

Case Background

Published on: July 19, 2012

Defendant Contends Identification Procedures by Police Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court rendered on January 6, 1981, upon a verdict convicting a man of the criminal act of rape in the first degree.

On the evening of July 4, 1979, at approximately 9:45 p. m., the female victim, aged 19, was walking up Baker Avenue in Cohoes, New York, en route to Cohoes Memorial Hospital. A man walked past her, turned and came up behind her, put his hands over her eyes and mouth and told her not to scream. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he then dragged her off the shoulder of the road into some bushes, punched her for a number of times, removed her clothing, and raped her.

When the man left, she donned her clothing and ran to the emergency room at the hospital where she received medical attention for her injuries and notified police. She thereafter gave a detailed description of her assailant to the police stating that he was a white male, age 20 to 25 years, about five feet nine inches tall, weighing 150 to 160 pounds, with shoulder length dirty blonde hair parted in the middle, wearing blue denim pants with a belt, a light pullover shirt, and sneakers. On September 25, 1979, she examined a series of six photographs at the Police Department and quickly identified a photograph of the accused as the man who had raped her. The man was indicted and his trial commenced. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was positively identified in court by the victim as the man who raped her on July 4, 1979. His defense was mistaken identity and he contended, among other things, that at or around the time of the incident his hair was not even collar length. In addition, both the man and his wife testified that he was at home the entire night the criminal act was committed. Rebuttal witnesses for the Sate contradicted the testimony.

Published on: July 19, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

On 6 January 1992, respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree robbery and single counts of first-degree burglary, first-degree rape, and first-degree sodomy. The plea satisfied charges arising from two separate criminal incidents, the robbery of a gas station attendant and a home invasion, for which respondent was arrested and indicted separately in 1988. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 8 to 16 years, running from his arrest. In July 1999, respondent was released to parole supervision after serving 11 years and eight months of his sentence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 19 May 2000, he was again arrested and indicted separately for three robberies. On 12 December 2001, he pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree robbery, for each of which he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 2 to 4 years, and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, for which he was sentenced to prison for one year. The indictment satisfied by respondent’s plea to the weapon-possession count also accused him of sexual abuse. These sentences ran concurrently to each other but consecutively to the undischarged portion of the indeterminate sentence imposed on respondent in 1992. On 6 January 2006, he was released to parole supervision.

In July 2006, respondent was returned to prison for violating the conditions of his parole. In April 2007, he was again released to parole supervision but went back to prison after violating the conditions of his parole in August of that year.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant Claims Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court were made. The proceedings found the accused man to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to a secure treatment facility.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused man has an extensive psychiatric and criminal history that includes convictions for two rapes and forcible touching involving three different female victims. At age 23, he was charged with rape in the third degree, sodomy in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child for having sexual relations with a girl under the age of 17 who was living with him.

According to the victim, they initially had a consensual (but illegal) sexual relationship, but the accused man thereafter repeatedly forced her to have sexual contact with him against her will. The accused man claimed that it was consensual and that he believed she was 17 years old, although he admitted having been advised that she was younger. He entered a guilty plea in satisfaction of all charges, and was sentenced to five months in jail and 10 years of probation. While on probation, the accused was charged with forcible touching for forcibly grabbing the private body parts of an 18-year-old employee of his drywall business. He later entered an Alford plea to that charge and was sentenced to a two-month jail term. After a hearing, New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused man was classified as a risk level III sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. That same month while still on probation, the accused was charged with first-degree rape for an incident in which he went with a friend to a female acquaintance’s apartment and forcibly held her down and raped her in her bedroom where he had lured her by deceiving her into believing that they needed to speak privately. He again was permitted to enter an Alford plea to the proceedings. Although he was released on parole supervision, the accused man’s parole was revoked months later when he was charged with numerous instances of violating the conditions of his release, including having prohibited contact with women and viewing erotic images of women, and admitted to one parole violation charge of exchanging electronic messages with a woman.

Published on: July 15, 2012

Defendant Gives Voluntary Confession

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County, First District. Judge Salvatore A. Alamia is hearing the case. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Colin O’Reilly.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant has been charged with driving while intoxicated, failing to maintain lane violating traffic law 1128, and two counts of failing to stop at a stop sign, violating traffic law 1172.

Published on: July 13, 2012

Defendant Claims Wide Variation of Results with an Intoxilyzer

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in the case. The Appellant in the matter is William E. Lent, Jr. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the 9th and 10th Judicial Districts of the Appellate Term. Judges Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum, and Iannacci, JJ is present.

This is a case of appeal. The judgments that are being appealed were made in the District Court of Nassau County, First Department. The defendant has been convicted of driving while intoxicated per se and speeding. These judgments were made during a jury trial.

Case Background