Bronx

Published on: June 19, 2012

Defendant Claims He Did Not Play an Active Role in Drug Transaction

by Stephen Bilkis

A team of police officers conducted a buy and bust narcotics operation. The undercover officer carried bills which had been photostatted and drove to the location where twelve people were standing near the area. The officer called out from his automobile asking if anyone had dimes. A New York Criminal Lawyer said based on records, the word dimes mean a $10.00 bag of heroin. The man then came over to the auto and asked the officer what he wanted. The officer then replied again the word dimes. Then, another man standing a few feet behind the first man asked the officer if he wanted Santa Claus. The officer being unfamiliar with the term ignored the other man. The officer again told the first man that he wanted dimes. The man asked how many and the officer replied to give him two. The man called over his shoulder the word duayduay and another man then walked to a tree about fifteen feet from the auto. He bent down, reached among the cobblestones at the base of the tree and removed some glassine envelopes. The first man told the officer to give him the money and he must give him one extra dollar. The officer gave the first man a ten, a five and five singles. The man then counted it and demanded the officer for another dollar. The officer gave him a five dollar bill and the man returned four singles. As the other man was returning to the car, another person walked over to the tree and the man yelled at him to get away. The other man then walked to the car and handed the officer the two glassine envelopes. The other man told the officer that he should get out of the area fast because it’s hot. The officer then left the area and made a transmission to his back-up team to arrest the two men. The police then recovered narcotics from the cobblestones at the base of the tree. The other man was found to have twenty dollars as recorded bills in his possession while only a single dollar bill was found on the first man.

The issue brought into the court was the argument whether the first man was an agent of the purchaser and whether the trial court’s charge on the defense of agency was damaging to the first man so as to require reversal of his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court then concluded that the first man was not an agent of the purchaser but rather played an active role as seller of the contraband.

As the court admitted the question of the first man’s status in the illegal transaction was a proper question for the jury and one in which they accurately determined that the first man was a seller of drugs. Based on records, it is important to remember that when the undercover officer drove to the prearranged locale, the man was not the only individual on the street, but was part of a group of twelve men. After the undercover officer asked of the congregation if anyone had dimes, the man then voluntarily emerged from the crowd and inquired as to what the officer desired and in what quantity. The second man approached and handed the narcotics directly to the officer. A few minutes later, the first and second man was arrested at which the second man had in his possession the twenty dollars of marked money while the first man was in possession of the additional dollar.

Published on: June 17, 2012

Defendant Claims Evidence was Illegally Obtained

by Stephen Bilkis

A police officer, a nine-year veteran of the NYPD who has made 500 narcotics-related arrests, investigates drug sales in lower Manhattan. On February 28, 2010, the police officer, together with his detective partner entered the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building in Manhattan to conduct a “vertical” –a floor-by-floor patrol of the premises in order to search for loiterers, drug users, people consuming alcohol and trespassers.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Officer testified that, in housing projects, officers may question anyone they encounter to determine whether they are on premises lawfully. Sometimes, at his discretion, he requires residents to provide identification or a key and must prove that they are not trespassers. Likewise, persons claiming to be legitimate visitors must also supply corroboration.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officer testified that he entered the premises at around 6:30 p.m. and observed defendant standing alone in the lobby. Thereafter, he approached the defendant and asked whether he resided in the building. Defendant replied that he was visiting a friend. When defendant did not supply a name and apartment number, the police officer arrested him for trespassing on NYCA premises. The detective searched the defendant and recovered 29 ziplock bags of cocaine from his waistband. The police officer performed a search and found $284 on defendant’s person. Thereafter, defendant was charged with criminal cocaine possession and trespassing.

Published on: June 17, 2012

Defendant Takes Issue of Reclassification of Drug Offense to a Felony

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was charged in an indictment of two counts of criminal heroin possession and sale. The first count was due to drug possession and sale committed on October 19, 1973 and the second count was due to heroin possession and sale committed on October 23, 1973.

On September 1, 1973, the legislature of New York passed a law which classified criminal heroin possession and sale as a A-III felony. Being classified as A-III felony, a conviction would be punishable with an indeterminate prison sentence of a minimum of one to eight years (for first time offenders) and a maximum of life imprisonment.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused here seeks a dismissal of the information and the indictment against him on the grounds that the indictment for criminal heroin sale and possession violates his rights to due process, equal protection, and the right against cruel and unusual punishment.

Published on: June 16, 2012

Sex Crime Includes Sex With a Minor

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was convicted of criminal cocaine sale; and criminal marijuana sale when he sold cocaine and marijuana to an undercover police officer at nine different times and at nine different places.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said because of the sales of controlled substances to undercover police officers, the police had enough bases for a search warrant. When they searched the man’s apartment they found cocaine there. The man pleaded guilty to criminal sale and was sentenced to a prison term of 7 ½ to 15 years. After his conviction and pending his sentencing, the man was still out on bail. He undertook before the Court to appear whenever his presence was required and he also undertook not to be arrested on new charges.

During the time of his conditional release, the man had sex with a thirteen year old girl who was his neighbor’s daughter. He had sex with her in his apartment five different times. The thirteen year old girl got pregnant and the man moved to a different apartment in another building.

Published on: June 2, 2012

Sex Crime Defendant Appeals for Technical Legal Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 2 May 2011, defendant forcibly compelled complaining witness-one to perform oral sex upon him and then forcibly subjected her to anal intercourse.

On 14 May 2011, defendant forcibly touched the breasts of complaining witness-two with his hands and mouth, forcibly compelled her to perform oral sex upon him and then forcibly subjected her to vaginal intercourse.

Published on: June 1, 2012

Plaintiff Sues Employer for Sexual Offenses

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainants filed an action that alleges forty-six allegations of fact in support of three causes of action. Their first two causes of action claims include sexual assault by the creation of a hostile work environment and the constructive discharge. The third cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A New York Criminal Lawyer said all of the complainants seek for a decision without trial on liability on the entire complaint.

The complaint alleges that the complainants were working at the clinic when they discovered that the doctor had installed and used a hidden camera in the only working restroom.

Consequently, a New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the complainant’s asserts thirty-eight allegations of fact in support of five causes of action. The first two causes of action claim consist of sexual assault by the creation of a hostile work environment, for intentional discrimination and constructive discharge. The third cause of action is for violation of the right to privacy. The fourth cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The fifth is for tort. The said complainant seeks to have decision without trial on liability on the first, second and fourth reasons of action. She asserts that she was a medical office clerk at the clinic and at some point the doctor placed an air purifier containing a hidden surveillance camera in the employee’s bathroom positioned five feet away from and at the same height of the toilet seat. She further states that she used the bathroom at least twice a day. When she discovered the unlawful surveillance equipment and the placement of the monitor in the doctor’s office, she resigned.

Published on: May 31, 2012

Defendant Contends Penal Law Unconstitutional

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainants, a prostitute and a patron seek a judgment declaring sections of the Penal Law unconstitutional. The laws prohibit prostitution and patronizing a prostitute.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the action was commenced and the opponents, the City Mayor and the City Police Commissioner moved to dismiss on the ground that the prostitute and the patron lacked standing. Another opponent, the County District Attorney moved to dismiss on the same ground and also that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action with leave to re-plead. The complainants filed an amended complaint and all the opponents moved to dismiss on the same grounds alleged by the District Attorney after the first complaint was filed. The complainants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. Before deciding the motions, the Court determined whether any of the prior rulings are LAW OF THE CASE.

The Law of the Case doctrine is a kind of intro-action res judicata or matter that was already settled and cannot be raised again. Within the framework of a single action, it prevents re-litigation of a point already adjudicated in it.

Published on: May 30, 2012

Son Sexually Attacks Mother, Mother Accused of Sexual Abuse

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman who was originally from the Dominican Republic had a son whom she left in the Dominican Republic when she migrated to the United States. She obtained permanent residence status when she married an American citizen with whom she had two other children.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said she was then able to send for her son from the Dominican Republic. He first stayed with his father’s relatives in Florida but later on he moved in with his mother at the house she shared with her American husband and their two children.

Sometime on December 31, 2007, the mother, the son and the stepfather attended a party where they all had quite a bit to drink. The son, who was then 14 years old drank rum at that party they attended. When they came home, the stepfather stayed in the living room to watch television.

Published on: May 29, 2012

Defendant Claims Court Lacked Jurisdiction for Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, a man filed an appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree, upon his plea of guilty.

The offense happened on the last quarter of 2004 when the man assaulted his former girlfriend on several occasions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he broke into his girlfriend’s apartment, repeatedly harassed the woman and stalked her in violation of temporary orders of protection. Consequently, the man was charged in two separate accusations with multiple crimes, including burglary in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree, criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree, stalking in the fourth degree, and menacing in the second degree. Afterwards, the separate accusations were consolidated. The man also agreed to plead guilty to burglary and criminal contempt. Based on records, in exchange of the man’s claim, the Supreme Court promised him that if he completed the treatment alternatives to street crimes drug program they will leave his plea to burglary in the second degree and sentence him to concurrent terms of five years’ probation for criminal contempt in the first degree and second degree. However, the Supreme Court warned the man that if he failed to complete drug treatment, his plea to burglary in the second degree would stand, and he would be sentenced to a determinate term of seven years of imprisonment and a period of five years of post release supervision for that offense.

The man then acknowledged that he understood the arrangement. The man give up his right to a jury trial, his right to cross- examine witnesses, and his right to testify on his own behalf if he wished to do so. Immediately after the man acknowledged that he was giving up his rights, the Supreme Court briefly addressed the issue of a waiver of the right to appeal. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said that it explained that if the man were tried and convicted, he would have the right to appeal the conviction but he already give up his right. The Supreme Court further asked the man whether he was willing to give up all his rights and any other rights he had and plead guilty and the man answered yes. The man then admitted that he entered unlawfully and remained unlawfully in the victim’s dwelling, that he was aware that she had obtained an order of protection against him, and that he had violated that order of protection.

Published on: May 29, 2012

Court Discusses the Crime of Predatory Sexual Assault

by Stephen Bilkis

The indictment alleges that on May 2, 2011, the man forcibly compelled the complaining witness to perform oral sex upon him. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to the indictment, the man then forcibly subjected the woman to anal intercourse. The indictment further alleges that, on May 14, 2011, the man forcibly touched the breasts of complaining witness with his hands and mouth. According to the indictment, the man also forcibly compelled the complainant woman to perform oral sex upon him and then forcibly subjected her to vaginal intercourse.

The man’s motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes was granted. Upon review of the Grand Jury minutes, questions pertaining to the counts of Predatory Sexual Assault were raised by the court. Following oral argument, the Jury dismissed four of the indictment, each charging Predatory Sexual Assault, as they related to the underlying offenses committed on May 2, 2011. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man moves for dismissal of the remaining indictment, each charging Predatory Sexual Assault, as they relate to the underlying offenses committed on May 14, 2011, on the following grounds that the remaining counts of Predatory Sexual Assault, as they appear in the indictment, fail to state a crime or offense; the remaining counts of Predatory Sexual Assault cannot be legally amended; the Predatory Sexual Assault statute was enacted to penalize recidivist behavior; and the Jury’s intended use of the Predatory Sexual Assault statute violates man’s due process rights.

The Jury contends that their intended use of the Predatory Sexual Assault statute is appropriate and that the remaining indictments were properly charged to the Grand Jury and correctly worded in the indictment. The man’s motion to dismiss was denied from the bench.