Articles Posted in Domestic Violence

In January 2011, the defendant was arraigned and charged with one count each of: Assault In The Third Degree, Criminal Obstruction Of Breathing Or Blood Circulation, Attempted Assault In The Third Degree, and Harassment In The Second Degree

A Kings County Criminal lawyer said that at arraignment, since the People did not have the supporting deposition of the complainant, the court deemed that the accusatory instrument had not been converted into an information. Accordingly, the case was adjourned for conversion.

Off calendar, the People served and filed a superseding information charging the defendant with one count each of attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, and harassment in the second degree.

In this domestic violence prosecution, defendant stands indicted for, among other things, burglary, assault and criminal contempt involving alleged assaults on his girlfriend at her home in violation of an order of protection.

The People now allege that the complainant has had a change of heart and is refusing to cooperate with the prosecution as a result of over 300 telephone calls placed to her by the defendant from jail. Because of this the People move to introduce the complainant’s grand jury testimony on their direct case. A hearing was held in order to determine whether such an order is warranted.

The Constitution guarantees to every citizen accused of crimes, the right to confront the witnesses against him, which of necessity, includes the right to cross-examination. In fact, cross-examination has been described as “the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested”, and that restrictions on the right to cross-examine “can deprive a defendant of an important means of combating inculpatory testimony or at least demonstrating the existence of reasonable doubt as to guilt.

Continue reading

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant is charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and disorderly conduct.

On 26 July 2007, a Mapp-Huntley was held before this court. At this hearing Sgt. KK and the defendant, JE, testified. The court finds incredible. At the end of the hearing, both parties requested additional time to submit post-hearing memoranda of law, which they both did.

On 21 December 2006, at around 8:00 to 8:20 pm, a group of five or six individuals, including the defendant, were gathered in front of 85-02 Rockaway Beach Boulevard, which is part of a public housing complex referred to as the Hamel Houses. They were blocking the pedestrian walkway going into the building. The Sergeant, in an unmarked car with two other officers, pulled over, turned on the red bubble lights, and the Sergeant, with his shield out, told them to leave the area. They nodded and started to walk away in apparent compliance with the Sergeant’s directive. Upon seeing this group walk away, the police left the scene.

An institution filed an appeal against a mother alleging that her six children were suspected neglected. At that time, the youngest child was a new-born and the oldest child was 16 years old.

The petitions alleged that the mother failed to provide her children with proper supervision and guardianship. Specifically, the petitions alleged that the school-age children were not enrolled in school. Additionally, the petitions alleged that the mother misused marijuana and then gave birth to a baby with a positive toxicology for marijuana.

Subsequently, a fact-finding hearing was conducted. The institution called two witnesses on their direct case, the caseworker and the mother.

Continue reading

Respondent is the mother of the two subject children. Respondent also has an older daughter, currently a third year student at Princeton University, visits the home on some weekends and during school vacations.

In February 2008, respondent was arrested and her children were removed from her care pursuant to Family Court Act § 1024 prior to the filing of a petition. Thereafter, the Children Services filed petitions against respondent in kings County Family Court.

A Kings County Criminal lawyer said that the petitions allege that the mother neglected her son, by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon him. Specifically, the petitions allege that, the police responded to a 911 call made from a business near the case address after the son left the home because his mother beat him with a belt. The petitions further allege that the son reported that the beating took place after his mother learned that he had failed a number of classes. When the son tried to get away, the mother allegedly grabbed him, tied him to the chair and hit him again. He also reported that his mother had used physical discipline in the past although this time was worse than other times. Finally, the petitions allege that the daughter is a derivatively neglected child by virtue of the neglect of the son.

Continue reading

In April 2006 respondent father filed a motion requesting that this court enter a dispositional order dismissing the neglect petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c) or, in the alternative, suspending judgment of the neglect finding, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1053. The Children’s Services, the law guardian for the children, and the respondent mother have filed opposition papers thereto.

A Kings County Domestic violence lawyer said that the court proceedings began when the respondent father filed a petition in Kings County Criminal Court in January 2005 seeking custody of the subject children. His petition alleges that he is the father of the children, and it would be in the best interests of the children to be in his custody because the children are suffering mysterious burns and accidents in the care of their mother. The respondent father requested sole custody of the children. Due to the child protective allegations in the petition, the judge ordered an emergency investigation, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1034.

Thereafter, the respondent mother filed a family offense petition in Kings County Family Court seeking an order of protection against the respondent father for herself and the subject children. Her petition alleges that the respondent father pushed and hit the respondent mother in her mouth with his elbow in the presence of the children. Her petition also alleges prior incidents of abuse, including that he has thrown things at her, and has choked her until she was gasping for air. She also alleged that he uses drugs, carries a knife and has access to guns. At the same time, the respondent mother also filed a petition for custody of the subject children, seeking sole custody, alleging that the respondent has been physically abusive to her in the presence of the child.

Continue reading

The defendant was charged with harassment based on numerous harassing and threatening telephone calls he allegedly made to his former paramour, with whom he had two children. Specifically, a misdemeanor complaint was filed charging the defendant with harassment and aggravated harassment. By order, the action was transferred from the County Criminal Court to the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Part of the County Supreme Court. The misdemeanor complaint was converted to information by the complainant’s attestation. After a nonjury trial, the court convicted the defendant of three counts of attempted aggravated harassment.

The defendant argues for the first time on appeal that the IDV Part of the Supreme Court, to which his case was transferred from the Criminal Court, lacked jurisdiction over the instant matter because neither a grand jury indictment nor a superior court information was filed by a district attorney and he never waived his right to an indictment by a grand jury. Moreover, the defendant contends that there was no legislative mandate authorizing the transfer.

As a threshold matter, the County Court agrees with the defendant that his contention regarding the jurisdiction of the IDV Part may properly be raised for the first time on appeal. The preservation rule does not apply to errors that affect the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law. Such errors fall into a very narrow category of cases. The Court of Appeals has held that, in general, errors that fall under the exception exist where the court had no jurisdiction, or where the right to trial by jury was disregarded, or where there was a fundamental, non-waivable defect in the mode of procedure. The exception to the general rule was created to ensure that criminal trials are conducted in accordance with the mode of procedure mandated by Constitution and statute. However, the exception only applies to errors that go to the essential validity of the process and are so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted.

The defendant’s written a Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) application to set aside one count of the jury trial verdict which convicted him of criminal mischief was granted by the County Court, over the written and oral opposition, on the record in open court. The written decision expounds in greater detail upon the County Court’s determination of the defendant’s motion, which appears to raise an issue of first impression.

The novel issue in this case is whether the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to establish the necessary elements of criminal mischief. The statute requires that the defendant intentionally disable or remove the telephonic equipment while the complaining witness was attempting to call 911, in an effort to seek emergency assistance from the police during an alleged domestic violence assault upon her. The trial evidence did not satisfy this statute.

The Prosecutor’s Information in this case accused the defendant of assaulting his former girlfriend in the presence of their three children. The trial testimony established that during the assault the victim attempted to call 911 for police assistance (using a land-line telephone) and she made a very brief initial contact, but was then immediately thwarted by the defendant, who bound the victim’s wrists with the telephone cord and then slammed the telephone on the victim’s hands/fingers as the child tried again to dial 911. At some point, however, during the incident the abused victim was able to complete a 911 call using the same telephone.

Continue reading

A Kings Order of Protection Lawyer said that, in this police misconduct action, plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to CPLR 3124 compelling defendant Police Officer to appear for a further examination before trial to answer questions that he was instructed by his counsel not to answer at an examination held on July 31, 2006. Although not included in the Notice of Motion, Plaintiff also asks for copies of documents related to the subject matter of certain unanswered questions, and, because addressed in the opposition of defendant and co-defendants City of New York, Police Officers the requested documents will be addressed by the Court as well.

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, plaintiff’s Complaint arises out of an incident on May 2, 2004, when the vehicle Plaintiff was driving was stopped, and Plaintiff was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon, assault, forgery, and resisting arrest. The Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages for battery, negligence, negligent hiring and retention, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and for Federal civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983. The City has answered for itself and for said defendant Police Officers. The Police Officer was produced for deposition as a witness on his own behalf and as a witness for the City.

The issue in this case is whether defendant should be compelled pursuant to CPLR 3124 to appear for a further examination before trial to answer questions that he was instructed by his counsel not to answer at an examination held on July 31, 2006.

Continue reading

A Kings Family Lawyer said that, this proceeding was initially commenced on June 3, 2010, when NYCCS filed petitions against respondent mother and respondent father pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act. The petitions alleged that the mother and father failed to provide a minimum degree of care to their three children since the father committed acts of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the children and both parents failed to ensure that the school-aged children attended school regularly.

A Kings Domestic Violence Lawyer said that, upon the filing of the petition, the court granted NYCCS’s request for a removal of the children and directed that they be restrictively placed with the maternal grandmother. In addition, the court entered a temporary order of protection against the father. That order directed the father to refrain from committing any family offenses against the children or the maternal grandmother and stay away from them except for visitation supervised by the grandmother or the agency. Shortly thereafter, the grandmother and the children traveled to Pennsylvania to visit with relatives. When she and the child subsequently returned to New York City, the other children remained in Pennsylvania with family members. Although NYCCS was apparently aware of this arrangement, the record fails to establish whether or not they actually agreed to it.

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, on August 13, 2010, the mother requested a FCA § 1028 hearing for the child. She did not request the immediate return of the other children because they were staying with relatives where they were safe, happy and attending school. The hearing, concluded on August 20, 2010, when the court granted the mother’s application and directed that the subject be returned to her. The Judge issued a temporary order of protection against the father on behalf of the mother and the subject child. That order directed the father to refrain from committing any family offenses against the child or the mother and to stay away from them, except for visitation supervised by the agency. The Judge ordered that the mother enforce the terms of the temporary order of protection, comply with NYCCS referrals for a confidential domestic violence family shelter, comply with ongoing domestic violence counseling and cooperate with NYCCS supervision, including announced and unannounced visits.

Continue reading