Bronx

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Decides Divorce in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

A Jewish couple married in August 1973. At that time, the husband was 22 and the wife was 18. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the husband was in dental school and wife chose to keep house until after the husband finished his dental studies. When the husband became a dentist and had established a dental practice, it was the wife who took care of all the details of the practice including the hiring and firing of his employees.

The wife was able to finish four college degrees during the pendency of her marriage and had taken a licensure examination as a social worker. The wife also set up a foundation that aimed to help Jewish women who were victims of domestic violence get a Jewish divorce.

The couple had four children. At the time of the divorce proceeding in 2004, the two older children were already adults and married with children of their own. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the third child was 20 years old but still in college and was dependent upon the support of his parents. The youngest child was 13 years old.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction of the IDV Court

by Stephen Bilkis

On 18 January 2011, defendant was arraigned in Buffalo City Court on one count of harassment in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law alleging an act of domestic violence by the defendant against the complainant.

A New York DWI Lawyer said on 26 January 2011, the People declared their readiness for trial and defendant served motions on the Erie County District Attorney on 1 February 2011. While this Buffalo City Court action was pending, three petitions were simultaneously pending in Erie County Family Court between the defendant, complainant and a third family member concerning the custody of the defendant and complainant’s child. The pendency of these simultaneous criminal and Family Court matters with the underlying issue of domestic violence prompted a screening by the herein Court, the Supreme Court Integrated Domestic Violence (hereinafter IDV) Part, located in Erie County.

Accordingly, the Court determined that a transfer of the family’s cases to the IDV Part was appropriate by finding that said “transfer of the case to the Supreme Court would promote the administration of justice” pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts for Integrated Domestic Violence Parts.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Looks at Possible Fraud in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman commenced an action against her former fiancé seeking damages sustained from physical abuse and violence allegedly committed by her fiancé.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the woman initiated a suit in the district court while her case was pending in the federal court. Her asserting claims are in accordance to the federal violence against women act. The Supreme Court struck down the violence against women act. As a result, the district court dismissed the woman’s claims under the act however the woman commenced an instant action.

Based on records, the congress passed the violence against women act and created a private reason of action for victims of gender-motivated violence against their opponents. Consequently, the Supreme Court struck down the civil resolution provision of the act, holding that the constitution provided no basis for the provision and deferred the suppression of violent crimes and evidence of its victims to the police power resting in the states. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that three months after the decision, the council introduced the victims of gender motivated violence protection act to fill the void left by the Supreme Court’s decision and provided a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence against their opponents.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Discusses Exclusionary Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever evidence of a crime is discovered by police during an inventory search of a person’s vehicle, it is subject to scrutiny. Inventory searches are administrative searches. That means that the police department or agency maintains documents in their standard operating procedures manual that indicates that an inventory of an arrested person’s vehicle will be performed incident to that arrest. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the reason for inventory searches is that people often make allegations that items are missing from their vehicles. The inventory of the person’s vehicle incident to their arrest is to determine what exactly is in the vehicle. Anything that appears to be valuable needs to be removed and placed into evidence or property so that the person can re-claim their valuables upon getting out of jail. The police department is protected from allegations of theft, and all valuables are protected for the individual.

However, in many cases, illegal items, narcotics, open alcoholic beverage container, stolen credit cards, and other items are located during the inventory of a vehicle. It is at that point that the officer must be able to prove that the search was an administrative search and not a search for contraband. That is why it is important for police officers to have their procedures documented.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that in a case that was decided before the Supreme Court of New York County on November 18, 2009, a defendant who was charged with one count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the second degree and with driving under the influence of alcohol. The man was arrested following a traffic stop. The officer stated that he observed a Lexus pulled up to a fire hydrant. There was a white male behind the wheel of the car. When the officer pulled up, the man got out of the car and approached the officer. The officer stated that the man’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, he exuded a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage from about his person, and he was unsteady on his feet.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Respondent Violates Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 15 March 199, petitioner spouse filed a supplemental petition has been, a Family Offense Proceeding, alleging that respondent failed to obey the modified order of protection issued by the court dated 15 November 1993; that respondent on 8 March 1994, upon release from incarceration for prior violation of the order of protection, arrived at petitioner’s residence with police at approximately 1:00 a.m. attempting to gain entry to petitioner’s residence and subsequently on 11 March 1994 that “a car belonging to a friend was towed from petitioner’s driveway, and petitioner thinking the car stolen filed a police report and later learned where the car was towed, and upon inquiring found respondent had filed a complaint and stated to be the owner of the property and claimed that the car was illegally parked and had the car towed where the towing company is demanding payment for towing and storage fees.”

A warrant was issued for respondent’s arrest. Respondent was returned on the warrant on 21 March 1994. In April 1994, a hearing was held and at the conclusion thereof, the court made two findings beyond a reasonable doubt, to wit (1) that on 8 March 1994, respondent willfully violated the final order of protection by attempting to gain entry to petitioner’s residence and (2) that on 11 March 1994, respondent willfully violated the final order of protection by having a vehicle lawfully parked on petitioner’s property towed from that property with false representations by respondent that he was the owner of the property, that the car was unlawfully parked, all to harass and annoy the petitioner. The court’s decision was based on the prior history of family offense activity perpetrated upon petitioner by respondent; the fact that respondent had been committed previously by a court in Nassau County to incarceration for one hundred and eighty days; that respondent apart from that commitment, had been civilly committed by this court for willful violation of the order of protection to incarceration for six months; that respondent upon release from this most recent commitment had almost simultaneously violated the order of protection again on 8 March 1994; that respondent’s behavior indicated an intractable design to continue to annoy and harass petitioner; and considering the welfare not only of petitioner, but of the two children, the court determined to civilly commit the respondent for each of the two willful violation to a term of incarceration of six months for the finding of violation occurring on 8 March 1994 and of four months for the finding of violation occurring on 11 March 1994, to run consecutively.

On 12 April 1994, respondent filed a motion returnable 27 April 1994 seeking re-argument of the dispositional order dated 7 April 1994.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Court Determines Child Custody Where Domestic Violence Present

by Stephen Bilkis

The couple was married in December 1989 and had always resided in New York during their marriage and their only child was born in July 1990. The parties resided in the City of Glens Falls. The husband was employed by an architectural firm and the wife remained at home to care for their son.

A New York Crirminal Lawyer said in June 1991, after the husband was laid off, the couple moved in with the husband’s brother in Rensselaer County. It was uncontested that the brother has suffered mental illness for many years and being treated with tranquilizers and has been hospitalized on numerous occasions. The husband admitted that his brother’s apartment was cramped, dirty, dangerous and had fleas which bit the child. Marital problems by and between the parties were intensified by their living conditions.

In August 1991, the wife left New York and took their son to Puerto Rico with her. She testified that she escaped to Puerto Rico in desperation due to her inability to acquire a safe environment in New York and the necessary medical care for her son. Because her mother and father both resided in Puerto Rico, the wife contended that she needed to live there in order to receive the emotional and financial support of her family.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Defendant Charged with Weapon Found in Car

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 22, 1982 at around 2:00 am, car was parked in an alley near an apartment building. A man opened the car and sat in the car and slept in there. The man was able to get into the car because the car was owned by a friend of his.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said a resident in the apartment building called the police to report the man sitting in the car. When the police arrived at the scene, they found the car and they found the man sleeping in the car just as the resident of the apartment building described.

The police woke the man up and told him to get out of the car. When the man had gotten out of the car, the police checked and searched the car. Between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat they saw a console. When they checked the console, they found a gun inside the console.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Defedant Contends Police Did Not have Probable Cause for Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

Two uniformed police officers were checking out an illegally parked car near the corner of 39th Street and 9th Avenue at 3am on June 15, 2005. One of them happened to look up and saw a man running. He was coming from the vicinity of 8th Avenue. When the police officers asked him why he was running, the man wouldn’t say. They stopped him and frisked him but found that he was not in possession of a weapon. When the police officers asked him what was going on, he said he had just been robbed. At that time, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the two police officers heard gunshots from the same area where the man had just come from. They reported over the police radio the gunshots fired.

At around the same time, two other police officers in an unmarked police car were in the vicinity of 8th Avenue when they also heard the gunshots fired. They then saw the white SUV they noticed on the street a while back. The SUV fired its engine and started speeding away. The two police officers followed the speeding SUV. They were tailing it when the SUV came to an abrupt halt because they came across the two other uniformed police officers.

The two uniformed police officers were standing on the street with their guns drawn when they heard the screeching of the tires of SUV and the unmarked police car that appeared to be chasing the SUV. A New York Criminal Lawyer said both the SUV and the unmarked police car were coming from the general direction of the area where the gunshots were fired.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Determines Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence cases are not stationary crimes. Frequently, one party will flee to a different state, when that happens it is important that the court orders that are in effect follow them. Prior to 1994, that was not the case. The federal government stepped in and issued the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 which requires that the states give full faith and credit to any order of protection issued by a court in any state. There are some restrictions though. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America requires that Full Faith and Credit is given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of all of the states. Congress is required to prescribe the manner in which the orders of the states are to be proved and given effect. With these orders, Congress made their intent to protect women who cross state lines, obvious.

Whenever a situation arises where the New York courts must make a determination regarding a domestic violence order from another state, they must take all of this into consideration. It is not enough to have a protection order in place from a different jurisdiction. The victim must also be able to prove that the person whom the order is against has been given due process under the law. That can be tricky. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when a person obtains an order of protection, it becomes important that they ensure that the court personnel handle all of the paperwork correctly. If the paperwork does not demonstrate that the person was served correctly and given the opportunity to address the order in court, there is not proof of due process and the order may not be valid.

In one case out of Richmond County, in April 7, 1997, a woman was in Staten Island when she noticed that her estranged father was following her. There was a protection order in place in New Jersey stating that her father was not allowed to harass, stalk, or follow her mother or any other member of the family pursuant to a domestic violence problem within the home. Her mother took out the order, but she was named as a secondary party of the protection order.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Decides Infant Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The responsibility of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) is to protect children in the state of New York from emotional or physical harm. This is the agency charged with stepping in to ensure that the home lives of children in the state of New York are safe. There are several laws that give authority to the ACS to conduct home examinations, require drug and alcohol testing, and even authorize the removal of children from their natural parents if it is necessary. However, because people are only human, the fact remains that sometimes mistakes happen. Unfortunately, when an employee of social services or children’s services makes a mistake, there are dire consequences. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in one case from August 2007, an infant girl child was killed at the hands of her mother’s companion. The case alleges that ACS employees were aware of the danger that the infant was in and did not take action to protect her.

The case states that because Brooklyn Family court had charged ACS with supervising the child’s home; and because ACS was familiar with many incidents of domestic violence in the home, the estate of the deceased child is due compensation for her death. The attorneys for ACS claim that since the child was killed by her mother’s companion, who is an outside party, that they are not responsible. The issue involved is whether the infant’s death was due to the gross negligence of ACS or was an unforeseeable event caused by an outsider.

In order to determine who is at fault for the infant’s murder, one must understand the laws that apply in this case. There are two arguments that affect the decision in this case. The first argument is that the representative for the little girl’s estate wants to serve interrogatories to determine who the estate will depose in this action. Under CPLR 3130, a party in a negligence action is not allowed to serve interrogatories and conduct depositions of the same party.