Bronx

Published on: April 15, 2012

Man with History of Domestic Violence Applies for Gun Permit

by Stephen Bilkis

A man applied to the license division of the police department for a premises pistol permit. As required by the application, the man answered numerous questions pertaining to his qualification. The questions include as to whether he had ever been arrested and was an order of protection ever issued against him. The man answered yes to the abovementioned questions. The man also submitted notarized statements describing the circumstances of his two arrests.

The man’s first arrest happened when he was in college. He states that he fraudulently applied for and received unemployment benefits. He pled guilty to petit larceny, paid full compensation and was awarded a certificate of relief from civil disabilities.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man’s second arrest occurred at a random traffic checkpoint. When the officers checked his license, the officer discovered that it was suspended in accordance to a family court child support enforcement unit order. The man states that it was an error because he had already appeared before in the family court judge and made all the payments. The man obtained the necessary documentation to verify his claim.

Published on: April 15, 2012

Court Says Evidence is Protected by Common Law Victim-Counselor Privledge

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman charged a man with criminal action of various felonies arising from alleged domestic violence. A non-profit corporation has moved to quash a subpoena issued by the District Attorney to provide the address and telephone number of the complainant of the criminal action. The non-profit corporation asserts that in accordance to the Social Services Law and the regulations promulgated under it, the non-profit corporation is prohibited from releasing to the District Attorney the actual address where the resident is being sheltered. In addition, it argues that the information sought is also shielded by a common-law victim-counselor privilege.

A New York Criminal Lawyer the motion to quash is denied. Section of the Social Services Law states that the street address of any residential program for victims of domestic violence applying for funding pursuant to this article shall be confidential and may be disclosed only to persons designated by rules and regulations of the department. At the same time, section of the State Code of Rules and Regulations provides for the confidentiality of facility addresses as each program must maintain a business mailing address separate and distinct from the actual address where residents are sheltered. When releasing the address of any resident, programs must release only the business address of the program and not the actual address where the resident is being sheltered.

On the other hand, section of the State Code of Rules and Regulations provides for access to confidential information pursuant to an order by a court of competent jurisdiction. The non-profit organization argues that the specific prohibition of the State Code of Rules and Regulation limits the broad disclosure permitted pursuant to a section of the said Code.

Published on: April 15, 2012

Defendant Argues that Search of Vehicle was Illegal

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.

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. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he 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 15, 2012

Court Rules on Robbery Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In cases that involve more than one victim, juries, and sometimes judges can become confused and issue verdicts that are not in accordance with the law or with good common sense. A case that was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of Nassau County on September 3, 1975 is one such case. The incident was fairly straight forward. This incident occurred on October 22, 1969 at a jewelry store that was owned and operated by one man.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said he frequently purchased items from other people and sometimes took in items on consignment. On the date of this incident, he had in his safe a diamond ring valued at $12,500 that he had taken in on consignment for another man. While he was in the shop that day, two men came in to the store to look at watches. They left without making a purchase. They had seen the owner go to the back of the store to retrieve a watch to show them from the safe. On his way back out to the front of the store, he failed to shut the safe or re-secure the dividing door that was usually locked between the front of the store and the office where the safe was located.

A while later, the two men returned to the store and produced a .45 caliber gun and ordered the owner to comply. A said the owner fought with the men and was struck on the head during the altercation with a hard object that he could not identify. He fell down near the panic button for his alarm. He pushed the alarm and passed out. When he came back to consciousness, he was handcuffed an in the back of the store. The attackers beat him again. He struggled to get free and he reached for the gun. Somehow the gun was fired and the jeweler was knocked unconscious again.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Defendant Claims Forum Shopping in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman, never been married, have a 12 year old child. There have been 6 petitions previously filed between the parents, all in Rensselaer County Family Court (in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2010 and 2 in 2011). Two were withdrawn, three were settled and one is pending.

The mother has filed a custody petition in Albany County Family Court. The father has filed a motion requesting that the matter be transferred to Rensselaer County Family Court on the grounds of inconvenient forum and forum shopping.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that under the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), a discretionary change of venue motion would be controlled by section 510(3) and granted where the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change. The section is, for all practical purposes, identical in meaning to Family Court Act §174, which requires that a change of venue by supported by good cause.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Court Discusses Role of Counsel at Grand Jury Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

A man indicted for drug crimes such as cocaine possession with intent to sell, denied that he had sold cocaine, but testified to his crack possession of three vials for his own use. A police officer testified that he observed the accused man receive money from an unidentified woman and then drop a vial of crack cocaine, which the woman picked up from the ground. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer further testified that he arrested the accused man within five minutes, finding four dollars and crack possession.

The accused man testified that he received the vials from three guys whom he knew. When asked to name the three men, he inquired whether he could speak to his lawyer. He was permitted to do so and replied that the guys are not really involved in what he was accused of. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the question was repeated, the accused man answered without further consulting his attorney. Presumably in an attempt to establish that the accused man’s cocaine possession with intent to sell, the assistant district attorney asked him how he obtained the money. The man testified that he received welfare, had saved some three hundred dollars while in a program of work release from State prison where he had been until three months beforehand, and also received money from his family. At one point in the accused man’s testimony, the assistant district attorney inquired whether the money he spent to go to movies was welfare money.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the assistant district attorney reviewed the accused man’s prior criminal law violations that include four felony and seven misdemeanor convictions. In detail the convictions include four robberies, one invalid use of a credit card, a fare beat, a trespass, and criminal possession of controlled substances. The assistant district attorney repeatedly emphasized the robbery convictions. The assistant district attorney then asked the accused man to tell the grand jury what happened on the occasion of his arrest for marijuana possession. The accused man explained that he was arrested when he took a bag of marijuana out of his pocket to give to a friend whom he owed money. The assistant district attorney finally asked him to tell the grand jury what he had been arrested for on the occasion in 1990 when he pled guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Court Discusses Integrated Domestic Violence Division

by Stephen Bilkis

In January 2004, the Chief Judge of a State promulgated the establishment of Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) parts in Supreme Court. The rule directed that the specialized part be devoted to hearing and determination, in a single forum, of cases that are simultaneously pending in the courts if one of them is a domestic violence case in a criminal court and the other is a case in Supreme or Family Court that involves a party or witness in the domestic violence case; or if one is a case in criminal court, Family Court or Supreme Court and the other is a case in any other of these courts having a common party or in which a disposition may affect the interests of a party in the first case.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the intent of the IDV directive was to allow matters involving a single family to be resolved in one court by the same jurist, thereby eliminating fragmented judicial adjudication and relieving the parties of the burden and costs of having multiple actions pending in different courts. In addition to streamlining the litigation process for litigants and providing better access to community services for families, the new IDV parts also increased judicial efficiency by avoiding duplication of effort by multiple courts, reducing scheduling conflicts and avoiding inconsistent outcomes.

Soon after the Chief Judge issued part of the IDV, the Chief Administrative Judge implemented the new rule by adopting part of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, which defined those IDV-eligible cases subject to transfer to Supreme Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that under the rules, cases that meet the criteria are sent to an IDV part where, within five days, the cases are screened to determine whether transfer will promote the administration of justice. If so, a formal transfer order is issued and the case is retained by the IDV part for disposition. If not, the case is returned to the originating court.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Defendant Contends he is Eligible for Judicial Diversion Program

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was arrested during the execution of a search warrant in his reported residence. The search warrant was based in part upon an undercover police officer’s sworn allegations that on 13 separate occasions the man, while acting in concert with co-accused sold cocaine and heroin. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accusation charges the man and his companion, with felony conspiracy for cocaine and heroin and conspiring to commit Criminal Sale of Controlled Substance.

The Criminal Procedure Law defines those accused persons who are eligible for Judicial Diversion as ones charged with certain Class B, C, D, and E felony drug offenses, or those charged with specified nonviolent offenses as long as they do not have a disqualifying condition listed in the law. If the District Attorney consents, a non-eligible accused will be deemed eligible. The list of eligible crimes is specific and does not include every nonviolent felony.

Robbery in the Third Degree and felony DWI, both nonviolent offenses, are not specified eligible crimes. Disqualifying conditions include convictions within the past ten years for felony or a violent felony; those who have a prior second violent felony or persistent felony offender adjudication; and those who are presently charged with certain violent felony offenses. Prior adjudications for disqualifying crimes may also be considered by the court in determining eligibility.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Domestic Violence Defendant Contends use of Medical Records Inadmissable as Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman had a boyfriend since she was 14 years old until she reached the age of 20. They broke up and went their separate ways living separate lives. Years later, the boyfriend and the woman met up again. The boyfriend did not have a place to live. So for old time’s sake, the woman allowed her old boyfriend to stay in the spare bedroom in her apartment.

The old boyfriend paid rent to the woman. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman saved up the money he had been paying as rent and she planned to give it back to him when he has finally found a suitable place to live.

During the course of their living arrangement, the old boyfriend needed to break his five dollar bill into quarters so that he can do his laundry at the laundromat. He took five dollars in quarters from the coin purse of the woman and put in a five dollar bill. Later, he told the woman what he had done. The woman got upset because she suspected that her old boyfriend was going through her personal belongings.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Court Rules on Divorce Case Based on Domestic Violence

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties were married in August 1973. The wife is presently 52 years of age and the husband is presently 56 years of age. On the date of their marriage, plaintiff was 22 years of age and a college graduate. Defendant was then 18 years of age and a high school graduate. During the course of the marriage, four children were born to the parties, the two youngest children, remain unemancipated. During the course of the litigation the youngest son resided in Israel or was a resident student at a university. It appears the youngest son is fully and voluntarily supported by the father and does not permanently reside with either party, although he does reside with the mother during the summer recess from school.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the husband commenced this action in December 2004 after the wife withdrew an action commenced in November 2004. The parties litigated in Family Court from 10 November 2004, through January 31, 2005. The husband also brought a writ of habeas corpus under a separate index number against the wife and her mother which was dismissed. The Family Court action was consolidated into the Supreme Court action, on consent. The wife was granted a divorce, on consent, after proof, on 10 June 2005, on the grounds of constructive abandonment and shortly thereafter the husband gave the wife a Jewish divorce. A law guardian was appointed for the youngest daughter, and a neutral forensic evaluator, was appointed by the court.

On 29 November 2005, the day set for trial on the issue of custody, all issues of custody and visitation were resolved by stipulation on the record. The agreement inter alia provided that the parties would share joint decision making of the youngest daughter, age 13, that the wife would have physical custody, there would be a parent coordinator and that the husband, the wife and child would separately enroll in therapy. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said that the wife voluntarily, without prejudice, withdrew her request for a temporary order of protection and same was vacated, on consent. The agreement further provided for supervised visitation and a mechanism for the child and father to re-establish their relationship.