New York

Published on: April 21, 2012

Defendant Charged with Gun Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 11, 2007, two police officers were on motor patrol in an area known for gang activity. At around 11:30 pm, a man walked in front of the police officers’ unmarked car. The man was walking slowly, impeding the smooth flow of traffic on the street. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as he passed the police officers’ car, one of the police officers noticed a shiny object glinting at the rear right pants pocket of the man who passed by.

As the man was walking slowly, the officer noted that the glinting object appeared to be metallic and it was inside his rear pocket. Only the clip was showing outside and the top part of the object was protruding from the pocket.

The police officer has had the experience of making 50 arrests for weapons possessions and he believed that the glinting object clipped to the man’s pocket was either a gravity knife or a small-caliber handgun.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction of Integrated Domestic Violence Court

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was charged on one count of harassment in the second degree alleging an act of domestic violence against the complainant. Consequently, the man served an action on the district attorney while the court action was pending. The three petitions were concurrently pending in the family court between the man, the complainant and a third family member concerning the custody of the man and complainant’s child. The pending decision of the criminal and family court matters with the underlying issue prompted a screening by the Supreme Court and its integrated domestic violence (IDV) part in the county. After the screening, the court determined that the transfer of the family’s cases to the IDV was appropriate by finding that it would promote the administration of justice.

The man moved for dismissal of the charged on one count of harassment in the second degree alleging an act of domestic cruelty against him and asserts that Supreme Court lacks an essential subject matter authority citing criminal procedure law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man also argued that irrelevant offenses charged as a sole count in a legal document may not be tried in the Supreme Court unless the offense is charged in an allegation that also charges a crime. The man further relies on the recent Court of Appeal’s decision that supports his dismissal request.

The man also claims that to understand the provisions of the constitution to grant the transfer of authority to the Supreme Court IDV part and to transfer a sole count of a violation level offense would support an improper use of the court’s resources and gives the court’s unarguable subject matter authority over more serious offenses.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Court Hears Battered Parent Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer says that domestic violence comes in all shapes and sizes. Fifty years ago, domestic violence cases were not recognized. In many cases the victims of domestic violence were ignored. It was a dirty family secret that few people talked about. The victims were ignored. It was not until the late 1980s and into the 1990s that the psychology of domestic violence was finally studied. Now, courts often hear evidence related to the fear associated with being battered in domestic violence. Several syndromes are common place in court rooms today: battered child syndrome, battered wife’s syndrome, and battered women’s syndrome. Crimes against the elderly do not get as much attention. In fact, it has only been in recent years that some states have begun to recognize that the psychological issues associated with being battered are not gender specific. Their wives or their children can batter men. In fact, many states have enacted additional statutes that are designed to protect the elderly from being battered by their children by changing the language of their battering laws to make them non gender specific.

In New York, in 1999, there had never been a case that involved a father being battered by his child. On June 21, 1999, a man who had been arrested for the murder of his adult son, filed a CP: 250.10 notice to the court that he would be offering a battered defense at trial. He requested that his medical expert on the subject be allowed to testify on his behalf. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the District Attorney assigned to the case stated that the state of New York did not recognize a defense of Battered Parent Syndrome. The District Attorney further stated that even if Battered Parent Syndrome did occur, a medical expert would not be necessary because most jurors have the ordinary training and intelligence to evaluate if the person is suffering from that syndrome.

The defense argued that since battered parent syndrome is not normally referred to by the general public, it is necessary to have an expert explain the correlation between battered parent syndrome and other battered syndromes. By showing the jurors that other states have already begun to recognize this condition as non-gender specific, it becomes easier for them to relate to the defendant.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Court Disusses Authority of Housing Court vs. Family Court

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, there are several different remedies which may be applied in the case of a family dispute. The couple, especially if they are in government housing, may proceed with an illegal lock out complaint to be reinstated to the apartment through the housing authority. However, if a complaint to address these issues has already been filed in Family Court, the Housing Court will generally refer the case back there. Family court has more liberty to pursue different remedies than does Housing Court. In order for a person to get reinstated to an apartment, they must be on the housing authority paperwork as a tenant or co-tenant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the couple may also pursue a domestic violence case in either Family Court, or Criminal Court, or both. In a case where there are other issues pending in additional courts, Housing Court will generally refer the housing issue to be handled by the other court.

In one case, a man and his wife who lived in a housing authority apartment had a verbal argument one night that was so heated that the police were requested to come to the residence. The wife informed the police that during the argument, her husband had told their children that he was a member of the “Bloods” gang and that women were not to be respected. He told the children that women were supposed to be under the foot of the man. A New York Criminal Lawyer said his wife had a previous order of protection that had been in effect in 1998 and it had barred the husband from the apartment. The police told the man to go out for a walk and cool down. He left the apartment. The police took a police report and left.

The man claims that when he returned, his belongings were out front and the locks to the apartment had been changed so that he could not get back in. The wife claims that she did not put his belongings out, nor did she change the locks. She stated that she obtained an order of protection for herself and the children. That order of protection declares that the husband is barred from the apartment until the hearing of the case in August of 2004. Since there is an order in effect in Family Court that prohibits the husband from going back in to the apartment until after the hearing in August, it is a moot point to have a hearing in Housing Court. Clearly, there is no way that the housing court could overrule the order of Family Court to allow the man to move back in to the apartment before the hearing in August. It is because of this that the petition to allow the man to move back in to the apartment was dismissed.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Court Decides if Medical Records are Hearsay in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The police received a 911 call from a woman who claimed to being beaten up by her husband. The police arrived at the scene within one minute of the 911 call and found that a husband was yelling and berating his wife. The man was standing over his wife who was cowered and hiding in between the furniture, hiding her face which appeared freshly bruised. She was crying.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the responding police officer asked her what happened, she said that her husband had punched her repeatedly in the head, the face and the back. She appeared to be bleeding from her left ear. She was in pain.

The police officer who responded executed a sworn statement stating the circumstances of his response to the 911 call. He stated that he found the couple in their home with the man standing over his wife who appeared to be in stress. She was crying and seemed to be in fear. When he asked what happened to her, she replied that her husband hit her and beat her up.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Court Determines if Probable Cause was Present for a Stop and Search

by Stephen Bilkis

At around 9pm on September 26, 1985, a police officer was on radio motor patrol. As he was driving around the area of the corner of 204th Street and 113th Avenue, the police officer observed two men standing at that corner and one of them handed to the other a plastic bag containing smaller plastic packets. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plastic packets contained a white powder-like substance. This was not the first time the police officer had seen plastic packets with a powder-like substance in them. He knew from experience that this is the common packaging for angel dust or heroin.

The police officer parked his patrol car and exited it. As he approached the two men, he saw the one who received the plastic bag stuff the bag in his shirt pocket. He also smelled something burning. The police officer had prior experience and instantly recognized the smell of burning heroin.

As the officer approached, the two men walked away. The police officer called out to the man who received the plastic packets. The man turned around and walked back to the officer. At this time, the officer observed that the man walked stiffly as though his legs couldn’t be bent at the knees. He was uncoordinated and walked like a tin man. A New York Criminal Lawyer said his previous experience with heroin addicts signaled to him that the man was exhibiting behavior common to people under the influence of heroin.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Court Decides of Removal of Children From Home is Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer says that New York Statutes relating to the removal of children from their natural parents is clear. The state will do everything possible to keep families together. Often the attempt to reunite natural families does more harm than good. Being a parent is more than bringing a child into the world. It is a big responsibility. It takes maturity and strength of character. People who are addicted to drugs or alcohol do not have the ability to care for children. Their addiction can lead to a hazardous home environment for children. Unfortunately, addicted individuals often lack control over their emotions and actions. This lack of control may lead to domestic violence. A home where the parents are violent toward one another is a home filled with fear. Children are generally unsupervised and often neglected entirely.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that New York authorities will remove the child or children until they feel that it is safe for them to be returned to their parents. The parents are required to attend parenting classes and often drug and alcohol treatment before the children are returned. However, sometimes the children are returned during the classes. In some cases, the parents are unable to resist the pull of their addictions and chose their addictions above the lives of their children. In these cases, the New York Family court Act §1089 details the steps that are required to free the children so that they can be adopted by parents who are capable of caring for them.

In some cases, the children are removed, and reunited numerous times over several years before the state petitions to free the children for adoption. One case of this nature began with the parents of seven young children. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the entire family lived in a one room shelter apartment together. The children, ages nine, eight, four, one ½, and five months, were born to parents who were addicted to drugs and alcohol. The father was a convicted batterer of the mother. For the following ten years, these children were removed and replaced five times. Each time, the parents would claim that they were going to take the classes. They never did. The father was enrolled in counseling for batterers, but he never attended the classes. The parents were drug tested repeatedly. Each time that they were tested, they either failed the tests or the urine samples showed that they were tampered with. Most likely when they switched urine from a child for their own in an attempt to pass the test.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Defendant Argues that Revocation of Gun License is Unfair

by Stephen Bilkis

A man had applied for and was granted target pistol licenses for his two pistols since May 1967. In 2001 the License Division of the NYPD converted all target pistol licensed into Premises Residence Licenses. Accordingly, man’s the pistol license renewal applications were converted into renewal applications for Premises Residence Licenses. On September 10, 2004, the NYPD License Division approved his renewal application and issued him a new Premises Residence License.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in June 2006, the NYPD received a notification that the gun licensee was arrested for a domestic dispute. The NYPD confiscated the licensed firearms. When they came to his apartment, they found two rifles in his residence which were not licensed. These were confiscated by the NYPD as well.

The police were called to the home shared by the gun licensee and his wife. The wife testified that she and her husband had a verbal dispute and as a result of their argument, the gun licensee assaulted his wife by punching her and kicking her. The wife also retaliated and assaulted her husband by punching and kicking him as well.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Robbery Defendant Seeks to Have Confession Excluded

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 22, 1965, a Supreme Court judgment was handed down convicting a man of robbery in the third degree. He pleaded guilty and was given a sentence in accordance with the fact that he was a second felony offender. He later appealed on August 9, 1965 requesting that certain evidence should be suppressed. That motion was over ruled.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on September 30, 1965, he attempted to have his alleged confession excluded and attempted that again on November 22, 1965. Both motions to exclude his confession and to withdraw his guilty plea were reviewed. The motion to exclude his confession was denied, but his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and substitute a plea of not guilty to the indictment was granted and the case was sent to trial. On September 30, 1965, the justices reversed the conviction on the law and then agreed to exclude his confession.

The defendant in question was arrested in the act of attempting to burglarize a closed and locked business at approximately eleven o’clock at night. He was seen standing on the roof of a garage, attempting to gain entry through a closed window. The defendant refused to answer questions at the scene and a search of his person revealed that he was carrying a knife that was partially broken apparently while trying to force open the window. Also on his person, were identification cards and papers that belonged to a pharmacist who had recently been robbed.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Robbery Results in Death of Victim

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 5, 1975, an elderly woman was living alone in her home in forest Hills, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said her home was attached to another home on the side of it and she had difficulties getting along with her neighbor. On December 5th , burglars broke in to her home and tied and gagged her as they rummaged through her home and stole her belongings including several fur coats. A piece of cloth was shoved into her mouth to work as a gag. During the robbery or shortly thereafter, the gag that was in her mouth cut off her oxygen supply and she suffocated.

On December 12, police arrested a 58 year-old used furniture store owner in Manhattan. He was not connected to the victim by any obvious means. The police also arrested two employees of the furniture salesman. One was a man with a lengthy criminal record for possession of stolen property and the other was a seventeen year-old female who was also an employee of the shop. The trio was transported to the 106th precinct where they were Mirandized. The seventeen year old girl had a history of drug usage and the police suspected that the events of that night were fueled by the prospect that the crime might be drug related.

However, when the trio was Mirandized, the defendant store owner stated that he understood his rights and that he did not want to make any statements. He did not request an attorney. After four and a half hours, the defendant called the detective to his cell and informed him that the wanted to speak to a District Attorney about a deal in his case. The officer informed him that the District Attorneys had already gone home for the day. The detective asked him if he wanted to tell him anything and the defendant did not respond.