Queens

Published on: April 14, 2012

Domestic Violence Leads to Murder Case for Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple married in 1982. The husband was a surgical resident while the woman stayed home. Their marriage was marked by frequent fights and quarrels. Both of them argued and threatened each other.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that one year after they were married, the wife called her cousin who was a divorce lawyer. Her voice was hoarse and she was speaking very rapidly. She told her cousin that she and her husband had an argument and that he assaulted her. She told him that he ended up strangling her until she lost consciousness. He advised her to move out of the house. She called to tell him later that she left their house and was staying at their grandfather’s house for a while. She also went to see her psychiatrist who stated that she noticed finger marks on the wife’s neck. They talked about what happened and she revealed that she was strangled and assaulted by her husband.

In 1984, the wife consulted a divorce lawyer. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she had adulterous relationships with other men and wanted a divorce from her husband. In 1985, she told her friends and relatives that she was asking her husband for a divorce. She informed them that she was going to coerce him to grant her a divorce by threatening to reveal a letter sent to her by his psychiatrist. In this letter, the psychiatrist told the wife that during her sessions with her husband, he disclosed that he was entertaining thoughts of murdering her. The psychiatrist asked for the consent of the husband to disclose this fact to her.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Domestivc Violence Costs Correction Officer her Job

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman filed a petition to terminate the decision of the commissioner of the department of correction. The decision is to terminate her employment as a probationary correction officer and directing that she be reinstated with back-pay and benefits. After the trial on the issue, the court finds that the petition of the woman should be granted.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the testimony and evidence introduced at the trial and revealed that the woman was employed by the department of correction as a probationary correction officer. When she was terminated as the result of a complaint made to the department of investigation by a person identifying himself as a parole officer. The officer indicated that he was the parole officer assigned to a former inmate. The former inmate is the woman’s former boyfriend, who has been a history of domestic violence incidents with the woman.

The individual claiming to be the officer made a previous complaint about the woman to department of investigation. The complaint alleged that while visiting the inmate, the officer noticed the woman’s uniform hanging in the inmate’s apartment. In response, the department of correction initiated an investigation concerning the woman’s undue familiarity with the inmate, and her failure to report that she was living with the inmate when she applied for a position as a correction officer.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Defendant Contends Police Did Not Have Reasonable Suspicion for Search

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said an accused man appealed from a summary judgment of the Supreme Court. He was convicted for violating criminal law through committing drug crimes. The accused man was sentenced for his alleged criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, crack possession in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said after hearing, the appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the accused man’s compilation of motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence.

The accused man was observed by the undercover police officers selling crack cocaine to the passengers of a BMW automobile during a drug crime surveillance operation. The BMW was stopped nearby and the passengers were arrested for a vial of crack cocaine possession that was recovered from the floor of the car. When the back-up officers arrived at the scene of the sale to make the arrests, they approached the accused man because he matched the description of the drug seller broadcast over the police radio. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said as the police officers approached, the accused man fled, dropping a plastic bag containing 100 vials of crack cocaine during the pursuit. On appeal, the accused man argues that the back-up officers did not possess a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime, allowing them to detain or pursue him and, therefore, the crack cocaine he discarded during the chase should have been suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful detention. A said the accused man makes the same argument as to the crack cocaine possession that was found on the floor of the BMW automobile.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said because the accused man did not move to suppress the crack cocaine found in the BMW automobile, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, the accused man failed to articulate the requisite privacy interest to warrant a finding that he had standing to challenge the admission of the evidence and, as the discovery and seizure of the crack cocaine in the BMW occurred prior to the police’s attempted detention of the accused man, it could not have been a fruit of that detention. With regard to the crack cocaine discarded during the flight, the court finds that the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, correctly denied suppression.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Defendant Claims Car Seized Unlawfully

by Stephen Bilkis

In matters of law it is important to have an attorney. Most people who do not have a law degree are unfamiliar with all of the limitations that are placed in reference to legal actions. In New York, the state can seize any motor vehicle that is involved in the commission of a crime. That means that the state of New York can seize the vehicles of people who are charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, there are certain limitations. A New York DWI Lawyer said the owner of the vehicle must be notified within 25 days of the date of a DUI arrest. The property clerk of the police department has fifteen days beyond the last day of the 25 day limitation to commence forfeiture action. If the property clerk does not meet these deadlines, then the defendant may move to dismiss the forfeiture action and reclaim his or her property.

DUI cases are loaded with intricacies of law that can make or break the case that the state attempts to make. The reason that there are time limits on the paperwork process for forfeiture of property is obvious. The problem here is that the state can initiate this process even before the driver has been determined guilty of a crime or not guilty.

In one case that occurred on June 17, 2007 when a man’s BMW B23i was impounded as an instrument of a crime. The officers seized the vehicle after the defendant was arrested and charged with several statutory offenses and traffic law violations. A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant was charged with several offenses, one of which was DUI. On July 21, 2009, the man made a demand for his vehicle to be returned to him. The property clerk refused and advised the man that his request was invalid because he did not submit a release from the District Attorney. In September of 2009, the property clerk filed a summons and obtained a complaint number to begin the process of seizure of the vehicle. On December 3, 2009, the property clerk mailed a summons and proof of service with the court on December 7, 2009. On December 17, 2009 the service was deemed completed.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction in Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Court cases are rarely tried strictly on the facts of the case. In almost every case that comes to trial, the issues that cause a mistrial or cause a conviction usually come down to points of legality. Because trials are investigations into the application of statute upon a set of facts or circumstances, it is critical that a defendant is represented by an attorney. In the case of a domestic violence offense, it is even more important. Domestic violence laws change almost daily. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said it is imperative to the proper defense of a case that the legality of the statutes that are applied are reviewed and questioned.

In one particular case that was heard in the Supreme court, appellate Division, Second Department, New York, the justices were called upon to review a domestic violence case in which the defendant was charged with misdemeanor aggravated harassment in the second degree. He was charged with three counts. The case was initiated in Criminal Court, Kings County. By an order dated January 31, 2007, the action was removed from Criminal Court and transferred to the Domestic Violence Part of the Supreme Court in Kings County. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the misdemeanor complaint was converted to an information dated February 7, 2007. A bench trial convicted the defendant of three counts of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree.

The defendant appealed his conviction. He claimed that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over his case because he was never indicted by a grand jury. He argued that minus a formal indictment, there was no superior court information. He relied on CPL 210.05 to support his contentions.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Defendant Objects to Prior Convictions Being Brought in as Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Gun Crime Lawyer said a man was charged with robbery for having forcibly stolen money from the complainant’s store while wielding a knife. The complainant testified that the man had taken money from both the cash register and a cigar box in which lottery receipts were kept, and had warned her not to tell anyone about the robbery. Testifying in his own behalf, the man admitted that he had stolen money from the cigar box, but denied that he had possessed a knife, stolen money from the register, or threatened the complainant.

Prior to trial, the man made a motion to limit the prosecution’s cross-examination regarding his prior criminal convictions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he had three prior convictions of felonies and misdemeanor. The most recent involved a gun crime with robbery of a delicatessen. Initially, the trial court ruled that if he takes the stand, the Jury would be prohibited from cross-examining him regarding his two earliest convictions, but the Jury would be permitted, without inquiring into the underlying facts of the case, to confront the man with the fact that he had been convicted of robbery. Following jury selection, the court revised its ruling at the man’s request to limit the Jury’s inquiry to whether the man had previously been convicted of a felony without specifying that it was robbery.

When the man testified, the prosecutor abided fully with the court’s ruling and the man admitted of having previously been convicted of a felony. During the Court examination, however, the defense counsel asked the man, over the Jury’s objection, whether he had pleaded guilty to the prior felony charge. A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said the man responded that he did plead because he was guilty. Immediately thereafter, on the Jury’s application and over the defense counsel’s objection, the court modified its ruling to permit the prosecutor to examine the man about the facts underlying the prior robbery conviction.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Defendant Brings Motion to Supress Physical Evidence in Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man appealed from the order of the Supreme Court, which after a hearing granted the man’s set of motion to suppress physical evidence.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the relevant facts brought forward at the suppression proceedings claims that the housing police officer saw a man and another male making an exchange of money for an unknown substance while patrolling in a radio motor patrol vehicle in the vicinity of a playground known as a location for drug crime activity.

The police officer over the course of the previous year and one-half had made 10 to 15 arrests involving narcotics. The officer continued to observe the man for another three to five minutes as he spoke with two or three other males. The officer noticed that the man was continually grabbing a bulge in his left side of his jacket. The officer did not otherwise describe the bulge. The officer called for assistance and then approached the man stating he wanted to speak to him. Apparently, the man immediately fled. The officer however chased the man on foot while his partner followed in a patrol vehicle. After about three blocks, the officer managed to stop the man, whereupon the man reached into his left jacket pocket where the officer had observed the bulge. The officer drew his service revolver and ordered the man to remove his hand from his pocket and put his hands against a wall. A New York Criminal Lawyer said a search to the man produced a loaded .38 caliber revolver and eight vials of crack cocaine.

Published on: April 12, 2012

DWI Defendant Contends Roadblock was Illegal

by Stephen Bilkis

A county sheriff established a roadblock with the purpose of screening drivers to identify persons driving under the influence of alcohol. At the aforementioned time and place, every car passing the roadblock location was stopped by the uniformed sheriff in order to make observations of the drivers to determine if they were driving while intoxicated.

Consequently, a New York DWI Lawyer said that one of the deputy sheriff stopped a vehicle. The uniformed sheriff stood in the middle of the road and signaled the driver to stop his vehicle. The man stopped his vehicle in a normal manner. The sheriff walked over to the driver’s side of the vehicle, and shined his light into the vehicle. The sheriff observed that the man’s eyes to be bloodshot. The man, without being asked, rolled down his window and spoke to the deputy sheriff who then noticed the odor of alcoholic beverages coming from the man’s breath.

As a result of the deputy’s observation of bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol upon the man’s breath, he asked the man to exit the car and come over to the side of the road for further investigation. All of the cars which passed the roadblock on that event were observed and the entire operators of all of the motor vehicles were asked with questions in the same manner as everyone else. After the man exited his car, the deputy sheriff observed the man’s speech to be slightly slurred, and again detected an odor of alcohol upon the man’s breath, and concluded that the man’s ability to drive a vehicle might be impaired.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Defendant as a Defense to Domestic Violence Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Three children were rescued by the ACS and the NYPD from their home. The two boys were aged 6 and 8 and the girl was aged 7. They were siblings. At the time that they were taken into custody, the children were all unbathed. Their hair was matted. The clothes they wore were torn and dirty. All over their arms and backs the children were bruised and scarred. The girl complained that she hurt in her vaginal area.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the mother and her three children were all brought to the emergency room. A pediatrician specially trained in treating children who are physically and sexually abused was called to see the children and recommend treatment if necessary.

During the diagnosis and treatment at the emergency room, the pediatrician began taking pictures of each child. He began with documenting the injuries of each child beginning with the head down to the feet. The doctor asked the child what the mark or bruise was. He then asked how the mark of bruise was sustained and who inflicted the bruise or mark. The doctor made copious notes documenting each wound, each bruise, each scar and all injuries.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Rules on Divorce Admist Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff (husband) and defendant (wife) were married on 17 July 1997. The parties have two (2) infant children. The above entitled divorce action was filed by plaintiff on 30 June 2005.

Both plaintiff and defendant blame each other for their failed marriage. Both plaintiff and defendant each allege that the other was verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive during the course of the marriage. During the pendency of the herein matter, based on criminal charges pending against both plaintiff and defendant, the physical custody of the infant children was changed by the Court twice. The defendant has had temporary physical custody of the infant children since 15 April 2008.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the Court conducted a non-jury trial with respect to the matrimonial action on March and April 2010. Plaintiff called one witness to testify at the trial while defendant called four witnesses. At the request of the Attorney for the Children, the herein Court conducted in-camera interviews of the two (2) infant children.