Long Island

Published on: April 28, 2012

Court Rules on Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On 23 March 1975 at about two o’clock in the morning, a murder occurred. It was witnessed solely by a nonparticipant to the crime which led to the defendant’s arrest.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the eyewitness had planned to arise at 2:00 A.M. of 23 March 1975 and set her alarm clock accordingly. Just before the alarm went off, she heard a noise that sounded like a fire cracker. She got up looked what it was. Thus, she turned off her alarm and walked to her front door. There, she then noticed that an automobile was parked right outside her house, on the north side of the street, facing west. Illumination was provided by a mercury vapor overhead streetlight. The car was parked under the light. The eyewitness viewed the killing from about 80 feet away.

The eyewitness saw the defendant fire a gun three times and run very quickly east on Park Avenue. A few minutes later, after she had dressed, she went out and saw the victim lying dead in the street. She notified the police immediately.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Statements Made by Defendant Used Against Him at Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused was arrested while driving his car a short distance from the scene of a possession of a weapon crime. After his arrest, the accused made certain statements to police which were used against him at trial. According to the statements, the accused had previously made the acquaintance of an individual and had agreed with the individual to drive two of the individual’s friends to a location where one of them was seeking a job. According to the statements, the accused drove the individual and his two friends to a house in Merrick. There the accused dropped off the individual’s friends. The accused consistently denied any knowledge that the individual and his friends intended to commit a robbery at the location to which he had driven them. However, the accused did state to the police that he had observed that there was a criminal possession of a weapon by one of the men during the drive from Queens to Merrick.

The accused man’s own testimony at trial, as well as the testimony of the individual and his friend largely confirmed the content of the accused man’s post-arrest statement to the police. The accused testified that he had met the individual’s friends on July 18, and had driven them to a friend’s house the following evening. The following morning, he agreed to drive the three men to the house in Merrick. He dropped the three men off at that location, but then the individual returned to the car, informing him that his friends were about to rob the people in the house. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused testified, consistent with his post-arrest statements that he had not known that a robbery had been planned. However, his testimony was inconsistent with his prior statements to the extent that he testified that he had never told a police officer that he had seen a gun in the car during the trip from Queens.

The individual testified that he had requested that the accused drive him and his two friends to Merrick. According to the individual, no one said anything to the accused concerning the true reason for the trip. The individual testified that after he and the other two men had gotten out of the car upon their arrival in Merrick, he noticed one of his friends take out a gun, at which point he returned to the accused man’s car, informed him of the robbery which was about to occur, and urged the accused to drive away. The individual insisted that the accused knew nothing about the robbery prior to it being committed.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Decides if City is Obligated to Provide Housing Subsidies to the Homeless

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiffs are a class of formerly homeless families and individuals for whom the City paid rent through a program called Advantage. The City induced these plaintiffs, many of whom are victims of domestic violence, to leave the relative safety of the shelter system and to enter into leases for apartments they could not afford. The City accomplished this by agreeing to pay all or a portion of plaintiffs’ rent for a year with the promise of a second year if they met the eligibility requirements for the Advantage program. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said once plaintiffs took the City up on its offer and moved, the City terminated that funding during the lease term.

An action for specific performance, and declaratory and injunctive relief was filed where plaintiffs seek to bar termination of a rent subsidy program (the Advantage Program) run by the NYC Department of Homeless Services even though federal and state funding was withdrawn effective April 2011.

Plaintiffs argue that the various documents appertaining to the subsidy program (Certification Letters, Participation Agreements and Lease Riders) contractually obligate the City to continue the subsidies.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Plaintiff Sues Police for not Enforcing Order of Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 13, 1992, a woman pulled up to an area in Nassau County where she saw police officers working a car accident. She got out of her car and screamed for them to help her. She advised them that her husband was in her car with a knife and he was threatening to hurt her. She advised that she had an active order of protection against him. She showed the officers her order and asked them to help. The officers told her that they would take care of him after she left. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said they failed to arrest her husband for the violation of the order of protection.

The next morning as she prepared to leave for work for the day, she exited her home. Her husband was hiding outside of the residence when she walked out. He attacked her with a machete causing serious bodily harm to her. She contends that if the police officers had done their duty and enforced the order of protection, she would not have been injured because her husband would have been in jail.

She filed a civil suit against the county where the officers worked for personal injury damages. The county maintained that they could only be partially responsible for the injuries that occurred to her because her husband was more culpable than they were. Under New York law, CPLR article 16, a joint tortfeasor’s liability for non-economic losses is proportional upon proof that it is 50% or less culpable for the personal injury. There are exemptions to this rule, domestic violence is not one of them. The court determined that in order to waive this rule, domestic violence would have to be added as one of the exemptions. The court just was not ready to create all new case law that would include domestic violence cases in the exemptions. Prior to this case being appealed, the victim had been awarded $1.5 million dollars by a jury. The County challenged the trial court’s ruling that barred article 16 exemptions from the case. The trial court had determined that there was a domestic violence exemption to article 16 and that apportionment did not apply because the case involved an intentional tort. The appellate division reversed the judgment holding that none of the exemptions applied. The appellate court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue Where Domestic Violence Incident Occured Out of State

by Stephen Bilkis

Often, questions of law arise in family violence situations that are unique because they are involving a domestic situation that is volatile and fluid in nature. Families are rarely stationary. The question of jurisdiction and venue become relevant when a family primarily resides in one state, but encounters a violent episode while out of state visiting relatives or on vacation. The law is expected to draw a line that determines who is responsible for protecting the victim or victims as the case may be. The law in New York has a long history of struggling with this concept.

In 1962, New York had a family court law that stated that the victim of domestic violence would have to have their case heard in the family court. This decision was designed to decriminalize family violence. However, the effect that it had was far from the one intended. Rather than providing additional options for handling abuse and domestic violence, it created a situation where criminals could elude criminal prosecution. In 1977, the state revised this law. This revision stated that the Family Court and the criminal court would have concurrent jurisdiction. In 1978, the law was revised further to include the three day rule. It stated that the victim had three days following an incident to decide if they wanted to pursue the case in either criminal court or family court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the complainant’s choice of either criminal or family court became final after the three days. These amendments were an attempt to provide more effective relief to victims of domestic violence. The idea was that they would provide more remedies to the victims of domestic assaults. In 1994, the state legislature created the 1994 Act. It eliminated the three-day choice of venue. The 1994 Act allowed true concurrent jurisdiction to exist. There was no longer the chance that an offender could escape criminal punishment if the victim chose to have the case handled by family court. Since it is a true concurrent jurisdictional provision, a victim can proceed in both criminal and civil court at the same time.

In 1999, amended the Family Court Act 812 and the Criminal Procedure Law § 530.11 to enable a complainant to proceed in family court and have the criminal court continue to hear the criminal offense that was involved. This legal amendment was created to clarify the intent of the 1994 Act. It is generally assumed that the legislative history of domestic violence laws in New York demonstrate a desire to expand the jurisdiction of Family Court and strengthen the remedies available to the victims.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The discretion of Family Court in New York to handle incidents that have occurred in other states or even other countries has led to many courtroom discussions. The Family Court laws in New York are clear in that they do not limit jurisdiction to events that simply occur in New York. In these laws, New York Criminal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with New York Family Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the deciding factor becomes whether or not the family resides in New York. In a case where the entire family no longer resides in New York, the person who is being served with the New York Family Court Documents must be served in New York. The reason for this division is that if the offender is not in New York, there is no imminent threat of further domestic violence to the family. However, if all parties are in New York long enough for the alternate person to be served, then the threat has continued. If the threat has continued, then jurisdiction relies on New York to protect the family from violence.

On December 21, 1989, a New York family who had moved to Florida had an altercation in Florida. During the altercation, the victim claims that the abuser, her husband, grabbed her by the hair pulling it out, slapped her and threw her onto the back patio of their house. The victim claims that also in Florida on January 16, 1990, the husband beat their six year old son, bruising his back, legs, and buttocks. The victim also claims that during the week of January 21, 1990, that her husband watched as she tried to close a window for the second time. He told her that she will never live to do it a third time.

The victim advised the court in New York that she and her family had moved to Florida in July of 1989. She stated that she had been afraid that if she did not move with him that he would take her children away. On February 1, 1990, shortly after the last incidence of violence, the victim moved back to New York with her children. She was afraid for her safety, so she moved into a shelter in Monroe County. On February 16, 1990, while she was living in the shelter, she was granted a temporary order of protection. It was later extended to April 27, 1990. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the husband was served in New York since he has weekly, supervised visitation with the children.

Published on: April 4, 2012

Court Rules Divorce Case Claiming Domestic Violence

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties herein were married in a religious ceremony on 1 June 2008, in Aventura, Dade County, Florida. There is one (1) child of this marriage who was born in August 2009.

The husband commenced the instant action for divorce in Kings County, New York and for custody of the minor child on or about 14 June 2011. At the time the action for divorce was commenced, the parties were living apart for several months.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the wife instituted an action for divorce in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida and filed and received an ex-parte injunction on 18 March 2011 enjoining either party from removing the child from the State of Florida and allowing supervised visits with the child. The wife predicated her original petition on the grounds of domestic violence and the husband’s allegedly ordering the wife to take the child and reside with the maternal grandparents in Boca Raton, Florida. Her petition in Florida has since been amended on 5 July 2011 to include claims for both spousal and child support and alleging assault, battery and cyber stalking by electronic communication in Florida.

Published on: March 9, 2012

Defendant Contends Insufficient Evidence for Robbery Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

Stanley Hedgeman was accused of robbery in the second degree, and the Trial court had ruled he was guilty. Mr. Hedgeman appealed against this ruling, saying it should have been dismissed because there was insufficient proof presented to show he committed the robbery while “aided by another person actually present.” This was Mr. Hedgeman’s main argument.

The Court of Appeals said the question they are asked to answer is whether Mr. Hedgeman, whose only participation was to wait outside the bank and drive the getaway vehicle is guilty of robbery in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer mentioned the court further asked if a person who the victims did not know or seen, be convicted of robbery in the third degree for the crime of aggravated robbery in the second degree? They said to determine this, they must first interpret the words of the law that says, “aided by another person actually present.” Does it mean a person who was physically there or anyone who was actively part of the robbery even if not where the crime happened?

In the trial, the only evidence that the people was able to present was the testimony of the police officer who conducted the interview of the one who did the robbery. The office said the driver was identified by the accused bank robber, and the two discussed the robbery before it happened. According to the court, this does not mean the driver was close enough to be actually present or adequately involved. The testimony of the assistant bank manager, said a Long Island Criminal Lawyer, only said that he saw the suspect get in a car, and someone else was driving. He was not able to identify the driver, so it could have been another person.

Published on: March 6, 2012

Court Rules Where DWI Offender Refuses Chemical Test

by Stephen Bilkis

A traffic officer responded to a radio run of an automobile accident at Roosevelt Avenue and Queens Boulevard. When he arrived at the scene, the accused was standing beside an automobile which had been involved in the car accident. The traffic officer testified that the accused had bloodshot eyes, was unsteady on his feet and had the odor of alcohol on his breath. A witness to the accident told the traffic officer that he had seen the accused driving the car. There was no testimony that any other person was observed to be in or around the automobile.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused spoke Spanish and apparently understood little or no English. The traffic officer obtained a driver’s license and other documents bearing the accused man’s name but he was unable to recall whether the documents were given to him by the accused or if they were discovered in the automobile. The accused was placed under arrest and was taken to into the precinct.

A police officer testified that he was called to the precinct to conduct an Intoxicated Driver’s Exam on the accused. In the presence of the traffic officer and the police officer, the accused was shown a Spanish language videotape intended to apprise him of the charges against him and to inform him of the repercussions of refusing to submit to a chemical test analysis or breathalyzer test. The Spanish language tape was translated for the Court by the court interpreter. Such is the only interpretation before the Court as neither the jury nor the accused called an expert witness to translate the videotape.

Published on: February 26, 2012

Court Discusses SORA Registration

by Stephen Bilkis

The SORA or the Sex Offender Registration Act is a widely discussed topic in the line of sex crimes. In this particular case, there are five names involved which are trying to relieve themselves from registering in the system. The first one on the list is Eliezer Cintron who is guilty of using cocaine and endangering the life of a minor with sexual abuse. He made her girlfriend and two kids slave prisoners in her own apartment. There was no sexual crime alleged according to a New York child pornography lawyer but still this was a negligent act of doing.

Next according is Nelson Cordero. His case was burglary since he broke into the home of his common law wife. He tied up his son and his 15 year old friend in a bathroom during the assault. There were no sex crimes mentioned but he was still considered a sex offender by the SORA. Dwayne Glover is the next with cases of attempted murder and robbery. He entered into a certain apartment with a gun and imprisoned all its occupants. He directed everyone including a 12-year-old girl to lie down in the bed.

Marko Ivesic was also discovered guilty of kidnapping after breaking into the home of his own brother in law where his wife resides. He did not have any sexual contact with anyone but threatened to kill everyone in the family. Francis Jackson is the last for the promotion of prostitution and kidnapping too. Together with his girlfriend, they forced two women to get into prostitution for days. He bribed them by kidnapping one of the sons of the two women so that she will not stop working for them as a prostitute.