The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant of the case is Eddie Thompson Jr. The case is being heard in the Ulster County Court. Judge Richard E. Sise is hearing the case.
Case Background
The defendant, Eddie Thompson Jr. has been indicted on a murder in the second degree charge. This charge comes from an incident that occurred on the 28th of October, 2008. On this date, Frances Johnson, was shot. She is described as being the paramour of the defendant.
The People of the State of New York are the respondents in the case. The Appellant in the matter is William E. Lent, Jr. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the 9th and 10th Judicial Districts of the Appellate Term. Judges Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum, and Iannacci, JJ is present.
This is a case of appeal. The judgments that are being appealed were made in the District Court of Nassau County, First Department. The defendant has been convicted of driving while intoxicated per se and speeding. These judgments were made during a jury trial.
Case Background
The plaintiffs in this case are the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is George P. Briggs. The case is being heard in the Nassau County District Court, First District, and Criminal Court.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was tried without a jury for an accusation of boating while intoxicated, which is in violation of Navigation Law section 49. There were numerous questions that were brought up during this case, which makes a written response necessary.
Case Facts
The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Craig W. Dixon. The case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County, First District. Judge Howard M. Bergson is hearing the case.
A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant, Craig W. Dixon has been charged with driving while intoxicated, refusing to submit to a field sobriety test, and failing to maintain a line. A Dunaway, Huntley, and refusal hearing has been held in the matter to determine the evidence found against the defendant that will be admissible in trial.
Case Facts
The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this matter. The defendant in the case is Thomas D. Alberto. The case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County, First District. Judge Salvatore A. Alamia is hearing the case.
The defendant, Thomas D. Alberto has been charged with driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, speeding, and driving the wrong way. A New York Criminal Lawyer said a Dunaway and Huntley was heard in regard to the case to determine which evidence against the defendant will be submitted during trial. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have been given the opportunity to submit closing statements in the matter. The closing statement for the defendant has been received by the court. The People have not submitted a written closing statement and have thus waived their right to do so.
Before the hearing took place the People told the court that the compact disc that contained the 911 calls and dispatches that concerned the incident have been destroyed pursuant to the New York State Police Policy that only saves these recordings for six months.
The plaintiff of this case is the People of the State of New York. Patricia Rose is the defendant. This case is being heard in the District Court of Nassau County, First District. Judge Kenneth L. Gartner is overhearing the case.
The defendant has made a motion for the criminal charge of driving while impaired by drugs dismissed. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said this motion requires the court to review an area of the law that has caused conflict in recent trial court opinions from the First, Second, and Third Judicial Departments as well as the trial court and appellate court opinions.
Case Background
This case deals with a matter concerning the attorney and counselor at law, Cheddi B. Goberdhan. The petitioner in the matter is the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts. Cheddi B. Goberdhan is the respondent. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division; Second Judicial Department. A. Gail Prudenti, P.J. , William F. Mastro, Peter B. Skelos, Reinaldo E. Rivera, and Leonard B. Austin, JJ are the judges hearing the case.
Case Background
The Grievance Committee from the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts has motioned for the name of the respondent to be taken off the roll of attorneys and counselors at law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the reason for this motion is that the respondent was convicted of a felony, which is in violation of Judiciary Law Section 904.
The Facts:
On 27 August 1979 at about 6:00 P.M., the complainant, a forty-nine year old woman, who was five feet tall and who weighed 130 pounds, entered the lobby of her apartment building. She was returning home from work. When an elevator arrived, the complainant entered and pressed the button for the tenth floor where her apartment was located. A young male entered the elevator with her and pressed the button for another floor. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the next thing the complainant noticed was the elevator stopping. Upon looking up to see if it was her floor, she saw the defendant standing by the elevator buttons, manipulating them. She also saw that the elevator was stopped between floors, with the door to the elevator shaft being open. However, the alarm bell of the elevator did not go off. Allegedly, the young male, a fifteen year old, who was approximately five feet seven inches tall and weighed in excess of two hundred pounds, turned around and told her to take her clothes off, and undress. When the complainant did not respond, the defendant repeated this demand. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the complainant then complied and was subjected to acts of sexual intercourse and sodomy during the next ten to fifteen minutes. Following this, the defendant told the complainant to get dressed, and he started the elevator back up, eventually getting out at the twenty-second floor. The complainant was then able to get the elevator back down to her floor, where she got out, went into her apartment, and called the development’s security police force. They then contacted the New York City Police Department. The defendant was identified by the complainant later that evening at the security police offices and was arrested.
Thereafter, the defendant was indicted on charges of Rape in the First Degree and Sodomy in the First Degree.
In an action of unjust conviction against the state, claimant entered a plea of guilty to the reduced charge of attempted rape in the first degree in satisfaction of indictment, charging him with rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said three weeks after it was entered, claimant moved to vacate his plea on the ground that it “was involuntary and was taken only because of the enormous pressure put upon him by former legal aid counsel and his supervisor from the legal aid society.” The supporting affidavit further alleges that, from the outset, claimant had told his Legal Aid attorney, “I did not want to hear from him about taken a plea that I believed my innocence could and would be proven in court.” Claimant describes the performance of his attorneys as coercive and also ineffective, and asserts that counsel should have withdrawn from claimant’s defense. Significantly, the affidavit makes no mention of any coercion on the part of the court.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, respondent Britt’s portrayal of events in general, and particularly those surrounding the entry of his guilty plea, is distorted and self-serving. An examination of the circumstances culminating in the motion to vacate his plea demonstrates that claimant’s allegations of coercion, ineffective representation and unfair surprise are contradicted by the record.
Two women were hired, one after the other, as data entry technicians for a company that manufactures, markets and directly ships children’s clothing and accessories. Both women were immigrants from Russia without relatives or connections in the United States. Both complained of sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual abuse from a high-level manager of the children’s clothing company where they were employed.
The first data entry technician was initially hired in February 2005 on a temporary basis upon a referral from a technical employment agency. She was paid the rate of $15 hourly which was later raised to $20 hourly when she was hired on a permanent basis after two weeks. She worked at the children’s clothing company for only two months before she was forced to resign due to intolerable working conditions at the clothing company.
She claims that on her second day at the job, the manager ran his fingers through her hair. At another time, the manager asked her to stay late and when they were alone, he asked her personal questions as to whether she had a boyfriend and actually asked her to have sex with him.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog