New York

Published on: June 18, 2012

Defendant Claims Illegal Search and Seizure by Police

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 10, 1979, three uniformed police officers in a marked police car approached the vicinity of Seventh Avenue between 143rd and 144th Streets. At that time, one of the police officers saw the defendant at 144th Street and Seventh Avenue, a known area for drug crimes. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant was known to the police officers as he was arrested several times for marijuana possession. The officers had been instructed to keep that particular block clear of drug trafficking. In compliance with the orders, the police officer ordered the police vehicle to stop and called to defendant so that he might ascertain his address and instruct him to leave the area in the event that he did not reside in it.

The police officer called the defendant and asked him to approach the police car. The defendant walked toward the car, stopped at a distance of 15 feet away and refused to come closer. The police officer assured the defendant that he only wanted to talk with him, but the defendant refused to comply. In this instance, the police officer then emerged from the police car and the defendant, began to run. Neither officer drew his own gun at anytime. When the police officers were within ten or fifteen feet from the defendant in a schoolyard, the officers observed that the defendant reached into his waistband and threw an object to the ground. The object, a revolver, was retrieved. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant was thereafter arrested and charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under criminal law.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on the principle on search and seizure that where the abandonment was coerced by unlawful police action for lack of probable cause, the property may be not used for evidentiary purposes.

Published on: June 17, 2012

Defendant Claims Evidence was Illegally Obtained

by Stephen Bilkis

A police officer, a nine-year veteran of the NYPD who has made 500 narcotics-related arrests, investigates drug sales in lower Manhattan. On February 28, 2010, the police officer, together with his detective partner entered the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building in Manhattan to conduct a “vertical” –a floor-by-floor patrol of the premises in order to search for loiterers, drug users, people consuming alcohol and trespassers.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Officer testified that, in housing projects, officers may question anyone they encounter to determine whether they are on premises lawfully. Sometimes, at his discretion, he requires residents to provide identification or a key and must prove that they are not trespassers. Likewise, persons claiming to be legitimate visitors must also supply corroboration.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officer testified that he entered the premises at around 6:30 p.m. and observed defendant standing alone in the lobby. Thereafter, he approached the defendant and asked whether he resided in the building. Defendant replied that he was visiting a friend. When defendant did not supply a name and apartment number, the police officer arrested him for trespassing on NYCA premises. The detective searched the defendant and recovered 29 ziplock bags of cocaine from his waistband. The police officer performed a search and found $284 on defendant’s person. Thereafter, defendant was charged with criminal cocaine possession and trespassing.

Published on: June 17, 2012

Defendant Takes Issue of Reclassification of Drug Offense to a Felony

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was charged in an indictment of two counts of criminal heroin possession and sale. The first count was due to drug possession and sale committed on October 19, 1973 and the second count was due to heroin possession and sale committed on October 23, 1973.

On September 1, 1973, the legislature of New York passed a law which classified criminal heroin possession and sale as a A-III felony. Being classified as A-III felony, a conviction would be punishable with an indeterminate prison sentence of a minimum of one to eight years (for first time offenders) and a maximum of life imprisonment.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused here seeks a dismissal of the information and the indictment against him on the grounds that the indictment for criminal heroin sale and possession violates his rights to due process, equal protection, and the right against cruel and unusual punishment.

Published on: June 17, 2012

Defendant Claims Confession Illegally Obtained

by Stephen Bilkis

This case was brought in court to determine whether the rule applies even if the interrogator is unaware that an imprisoned man is represented by an attorney. Based on records, the right to counsel rule signifies that an accused in custody in connection with a criminal matter for which he is represented by counsel may not be interrogated in the absence of his attorney with respect to that matter or an unrelated matter unless he waives the right to counsel in the presence of his attorney.

The incident happened early 2002, when a man was murdered in his bodega. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the case remained unsolved for some time until an individual came forward and informed the police that a man had shot the victim. The informant explained that, shortly after the shooting, he was talking to a group of young men in the neighborhood about the incident. The informant asserted that during the conversation, the man had laughed and stated that he had shot the store owner. The informant further identified man whom he had known for years from a photo array.

After receiving the information, the investigating officer interviewed one of the young men who had been present during the conversation reported by the informant. The individual recalled that, on the day of the killing, either the man or the other individual had suggested to rob a store. Later that day, the man admitted to his friends that he had shot the store owner.

Published on: June 1, 2012

Defendant Charged with Sex Crimes, Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was convicted of criminal cocaine possession and sale; and criminal marijuana sale when he sold cocaine and marijuana to an undercover police officer at nine different times and at nine different places.

Because of the sales of controlled substances to undercover police officers, the police had enough bases for a search warrant. When they searched the man’s apartment they found cocaine there. The man pleaded guilty to criminal sale and was sentenced to a prison term of 7 ½ to 15 years. After his conviction and pending his sentencing, the man was still out on bail. He undertook before the Court to appear whenever his presence was required and he also undertook not to be arrested on new charges.

During the time of his conditional release, the man had sex with a thirteen year old girl who was his neighbor’s daughter. He had sex with her in his apartment five different times. The thirteen year old girl got pregnant and the man moved to a different apartment in another building.

Published on: June 1, 2012

Plaintiff Sues Employer for Sexual Offenses

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainants filed an action that alleges forty-six allegations of fact in support of three causes of action. Their first two causes of action claims include sexual assault by the creation of a hostile work environment and the constructive discharge. The third cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A New York Criminal Lawyer said all of the complainants seek for a decision without trial on liability on the entire complaint.

The complaint alleges that the complainants were working at the clinic when they discovered that the doctor had installed and used a hidden camera in the only working restroom.

Consequently, a New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the complainant’s asserts thirty-eight allegations of fact in support of five causes of action. The first two causes of action claim consist of sexual assault by the creation of a hostile work environment, for intentional discrimination and constructive discharge. The third cause of action is for violation of the right to privacy. The fourth cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The fifth is for tort. The said complainant seeks to have decision without trial on liability on the first, second and fourth reasons of action. She asserts that she was a medical office clerk at the clinic and at some point the doctor placed an air purifier containing a hidden surveillance camera in the employee’s bathroom positioned five feet away from and at the same height of the toilet seat. She further states that she used the bathroom at least twice a day. When she discovered the unlawful surveillance equipment and the placement of the monitor in the doctor’s office, she resigned.

Published on: May 31, 2012

Defendant Contends Penal Law Unconstitutional

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainants, a prostitute and a patron seek a judgment declaring sections of the Penal Law unconstitutional. The laws prohibit prostitution and patronizing a prostitute.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the action was commenced and the opponents, the City Mayor and the City Police Commissioner moved to dismiss on the ground that the prostitute and the patron lacked standing. Another opponent, the County District Attorney moved to dismiss on the same ground and also that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action with leave to re-plead. The complainants filed an amended complaint and all the opponents moved to dismiss on the same grounds alleged by the District Attorney after the first complaint was filed. The complainants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. Before deciding the motions, the Court determined whether any of the prior rulings are LAW OF THE CASE.

The Law of the Case doctrine is a kind of intro-action res judicata or matter that was already settled and cannot be raised again. Within the framework of a single action, it prevents re-litigation of a point already adjudicated in it.

Published on: May 30, 2012

Son Sexually Attacks Mother, Mother Accused of Sexual Abuse

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman who was originally from the Dominican Republic had a son whom she left in the Dominican Republic when she migrated to the United States. She obtained permanent residence status when she married an American citizen with whom she had two other children.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said she was then able to send for her son from the Dominican Republic. He first stayed with his father’s relatives in Florida but later on he moved in with his mother at the house she shared with her American husband and their two children.

Sometime on December 31, 2007, the mother, the son and the stepfather attended a party where they all had quite a bit to drink. The son, who was then 14 years old drank rum at that party they attended. When they came home, the stepfather stayed in the living room to watch television.

Published on: May 30, 2012

Defendant Claimed that Repeated Playing Offensive Video Swayed the Jury

by Stephen Bilkis

The state of New York filed a complaint charging a man with three counts of forcible touching, three counts of sexual abuse in the second degree, three counts sexual abuse in the third degree, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, aggravated harassment in the second degree, and two counts of harassment in the second degree. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the charges were based on the man’s conduct toward a 13-year-old male that involved a sexual contact, exhibiting to the child a sexually explicit video, and other communications in an explicitly sexual nature.

At the beginning of the jury trial, the criminal court granted the of New York’s motion to dismiss the two counts of harassment in the second degree. At the end of the trial, the man was convicted with all the remaining counts after the evidence was presented which includes the victim’s narrative testimony of the man’s sexual conduct, the admission into evidence of the video which had been recovered from a laptop that the man had produced to the police as his personal property and the testimony of a forensic psychologist on the subject of adolescent sexual abuse syndrome. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer after the sentence was imposed, the man was designated as a level three sex offender.

Consequently, the man filed an appeal on which he argues that playing the video repeatedly to the jury served only to inflame the jury’s passions and was of questionable evidentiary value. However, the victim asserted that the man had informed him that the man was the actor in the video, which showed a male masturbating and performing other acts of a sexually explicit nature. Based on records, it is irrelevant for the commission of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child, whether the identity of the person in the video is known. Although playing the video evidence more than once was the basis of one of the two counts of endangering the welfare of a child and, as a general rule, photographs and similar evidence is acceptable.

Published on: May 29, 2012

Court Discusses the Crime of Predatory Sexual Assault

by Stephen Bilkis

The indictment alleges that on May 2, 2011, the man forcibly compelled the complaining witness to perform oral sex upon him. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to the indictment, the man then forcibly subjected the woman to anal intercourse. The indictment further alleges that, on May 14, 2011, the man forcibly touched the breasts of complaining witness with his hands and mouth. According to the indictment, the man also forcibly compelled the complainant woman to perform oral sex upon him and then forcibly subjected her to vaginal intercourse.

The man’s motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes was granted. Upon review of the Grand Jury minutes, questions pertaining to the counts of Predatory Sexual Assault were raised by the court. Following oral argument, the Jury dismissed four of the indictment, each charging Predatory Sexual Assault, as they related to the underlying offenses committed on May 2, 2011. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man moves for dismissal of the remaining indictment, each charging Predatory Sexual Assault, as they relate to the underlying offenses committed on May 14, 2011, on the following grounds that the remaining counts of Predatory Sexual Assault, as they appear in the indictment, fail to state a crime or offense; the remaining counts of Predatory Sexual Assault cannot be legally amended; the Predatory Sexual Assault statute was enacted to penalize recidivist behavior; and the Jury’s intended use of the Predatory Sexual Assault statute violates man’s due process rights.

The Jury contends that their intended use of the Predatory Sexual Assault statute is appropriate and that the remaining indictments were properly charged to the Grand Jury and correctly worded in the indictment. The man’s motion to dismiss was denied from the bench.