Bronx

Published on: July 27, 2012

Defendant Seeking Funds from Sale of a Home

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the case is Joachim Harris. The defendants in the case are Chandra M. Young, et al. The case is being heard in the New York State Supreme Court. The Honorable Melvin S. Barasch is the justice hearing the case.

Case Facts and Background

The action in this case comes from the sale of a real property that was owned by the plaintiff. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the property is located at 176 Malta Street in the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiff sold the property to defendant Michael Greene on the 24th of August, 2001. The price was $255,000. The plaintiff states that he was defrauded by the plaintiffs as they withheld all but $180,000 from the sale of the home.

Published on: July 26, 2012

Defendant Requests Sanctions

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in this matter are Avivith and William Oppenheim. The defendants in the case are Mark Stumer, Joseph Viscuso, Mojo-Stumer Associates Architects, P.C. and d/b/a Mojo-Stumer Associates. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the state of New York located in New York County. Judge Charles Edward Ramos is hearing the case.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said thttp://www.newyorkcriminallawyer24-7.com/he plaintiffs, the Oppenheim’s made a RICO claim against the defendants based on mail and wire fraud. These claims were in connection with renovations that were being done on their apartment. This claim has been dismissed. The Oppenheim’s then made a similar claim against the defendants in a first amended complaint. This complaint was also dismissed.

Published on: July 24, 2012

Defendant Receives Mid-Trial Publicity

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant has a history of being arrested under different names.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 12 August 1972, defendant was arrested for possession of burglar’s tools while on a fire escape. He gave a name, name-one, with a date of birth of 30 December 1946 and an address of 180 Saratoga Avenue in Kings County.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Defendant Appeals Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant was employed as an assistant comptroller of a Hospital. Allegedly, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was depositing checks payable to his employer in his own checking account. Thus, he was charged with five counts of grand larceny in the second degree. An audit by the Hospital revealed, and defendant admitted, that during the period from 1967 to 1972, such defalcations amounted to approximately $68,000.

According to defendant’s memorandum, and not controverted by the prosecution, the defendant was advised between his arraignment on 27 January 1976, and his plea of guilty on 24 February 1976, that if he made satisfactory restitution to his employer’s insurance carrier he would be allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor in satisfaction of the indictment.

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.