This case is being heard in the First District Court of Suffolk County. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is Jose R. Rivas. Judge M. Filiberto is overseeing the proceeding.
There has been a combined Probable Cause, Huntley, and Refusal Hearing in this matter. The Court has found the following facts in the case.
Case Facts
The case involves the petitioner, U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance, Inc. The respondents in the matter are Abraham A. Rubashkin, Joseph Rubashkin, Rivka Rubashkin, Rosie Sandman, Gutol Leiter, Hilgar Limited, 452-53rd Street Reality Company, A.A. Rubashkin & Sons Inc. 410 East 17th Street, LLC, 404 Realty Associates, LLC, and John Doe’s numbered one through ten.
The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. Judge Arthur M. Schack is hearing the case.
Case Background
In 2003, a senior building inspector for the Village of Westbury in Nassau County, New York, was working on a code violation case involving the operation of an illegal boarding house. The house in question was zoned as a single family dwelling house located at 335 Princeton Street. The home was occupied by several persons who were clearly not related. The code enforcement officer spent many hours surveying the home. He documented that there were more than twelve individual people that he observed going in and out of the home at different times. He documented the presence of eight vehicles that were each registered to different people with different last names.
A New York DWI Lawyer said he contacted the city garbage service and interviewed the garbage man about the amount of garbage that was picked up from that location. The garbage man gave him a sworn written statement that he had noticed that the house produced more than five times the amount of garbage that any of the other homes in that area produced. The senior code enforcement officer had recently been transferred to the Village earlier that year from a Village that was more proactive about handling the enforcement of code violations involving illegal boarding houses. The code enforcement officer was well versed in obtaining search warrants for properties that he needed to inspect. Without a search warrant, the occupants of the dwelling do not have to allow an officer to enter upon the dwelling. This right against illegal search and seizure is spelled out in the United States Constitution in the Fourth Amendment.
The rights that are ensured by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution are taken very seriously. In this case, the officers involved did not limit the scope of their search as was required by the details in the warrant. The warrant allowed that the dwelling be searched for evidence of an illegal boarding facility. The code enforcement officer brought along several Nassau County police officers to assist him with the search of the home. These officers were not as well versed in the case as the code enforcement officer. That meant that they chose to handle the warrant the same way that they would have handled a criminal warrant.
Bilingual detectives are an advantage to any police department. The problems that they solve cross boundaries that have existed for many years. However, problems can also arise that are exclusive to a bilingual undercover investigation. A New York DWI Lawyer said one such case occurred in 1983, when a bilingual detective named Ramos worked for the New York City Police Department. He had been a detective for more than fifteen years at the time of this particular trial. He was assigned to work on the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force. The objective of this task force was to apprehend persons who were primarily dealers of drugs at a level that is above the street level dealer who does hand to hand sales for five or ten dollars each. The goal was to apprehend the dealers who supply the street level dealer.
On July 16, 1981, Ramos contacted a dealer and told him that he wanted to purchase a large amount of drugs. Ramos had been assigned to a particular area and had worked for months to infiltrate the drug scene in that area. The street level dealer told Ramos that he had a contact that could supply the cocaine that Ramos had indicated that he was interested in purchasing. A A New York DWI Lawyer said the street level dealer contacted Ramos and with him present, called the upper level dealer. Ramos testified at trial that he told Ramos that the street level dealer had informed him that Ramos was a reliable person and that he had the product that Ramos wanted to purchase.
Several attempts to meet past by because one or the other was not able to make the meeting. When a meeting was finally arranged, the upper level dealer explained to Ramos in Spanish that he would be meeting him and gave him a description of his clothing and the type of vehicle that he would be in. Ramos advised him that he would be driving a red truck. When the meeting occurred, an Hispanic man approached Ramos and Ramos invited him to sit in the truck to talk. Ramos had a back up officer with him for the meeting. The two discussed an on-going criminal relationship of purchasing large amounts of cocaine. The upper level dealer advised him that he would be able to purchase one pound of cocaine for $29,000. However, he stated that he would first have to purchase a smaller amount so that he could see that Ramos was not an undercover police officer. The smaller purchase was made and the two made arrangements to meet the following day to conduct the larger purchase.
In New York, the legislature decided that stronger steps had to be taken to ensure that repeat offenders of sex crimes were taken out of the community. A New York DWI Lawyer said that in order to ensure that repeat sex offenders did not recidivate in the community for as long as possible and to ensure that they were given whatever treatment that might be available to ensure that they do not repeat their crimes. This law is the Sex Offender Registration Act. SORA is what it is called for short.
SORA is designed to target sex offenders on their second or third offenses and provides harsher punishments and stricter supervision of these offenders. SORA sets guidelines that must be followed for all sex offenders. If a sex offender is found to have committed a sex offense before, he will most likely be categorized as a level two sex offender. If he has committed a third or subsequent sex offense, or the offenses were of a high and aggravated nature, he can expect to be categorized as a level one offender. Level one offenders are given stiffer sentences and tighter supervision. It is therefore, in a felon’s best interest to attempt to minimize his sentence within the scope of possibility. A New York DWI Lawyer said this would provide him with a greater amount of freedom when he is paroled as well as a shorter prison sentence.
A New York DWI Lawyer said most of these offenders appeal their categorization in an effort to reduce their sentence or their SORA level. One such offender, impressed the court with the scholarly letters that he wrote in an effort to reduce his categorization. He contends that in order for the court to apply a sentence to a non-sentence statute such as SORA, they must use Penal Law §70.3(1) and that to do otherwise would be inaccurate. However, he noted that the first sentencing guidelines statute was created in 1909 as the 1909 Penal Law. He contends that the 1909 Penal Law uses a different system of analysis. The court pointed out that one of the legal points that impressed them about these well written letters was the information regarding the 1909 Penal Law. The court admitted that until reading this man’s letters, they were not even aware that the 1909 Penal Law existed. They also contend that while it brings about an interesting question of law, it would not be correct to use this prior law when assessing a sentence on a person in the modern age.
The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant in the case is Patricio R. Herrera. The case is being heard in the Suffolk County District Court. Judge Salvatore A. Alamia is presiding over the case.
A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant in this case has been charged with driving while intoxicated and failing to maintain a lane. A Dunaway, Mapp, Huntley, and Refusal hearing has been held in the case to determine which evidence in the case will be admissible during trial. The plaintiff and the defendant have been given time to submit written closing statements. Both sides have provided these statements to the court.
Case Facts
The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The defendant is Leonard DiBari. The case is being heard in Westchester County, Justice City of the Town of North Castle. Judge Elyse Lazansky is overseeing the case.
A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant, Leonard DiBari, is charged with driving while ability impaired by alcohol. During the course of the non-jury trial and pretrial hearings the defense has objected the prosecution’s use of simulator solution certificates and certified calibration records.
Case Background
This case deals with the Plaintiff/Claiming Authority, Christine Malafi, who is the County Attorney for Suffolk County. The defendants in the matter are Edward J. Radwinsky and the Ford Motor Credit Company. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York that is located in Suffolk County.
Case Background
A New York DWI Lawyer said on the 19th of December, 2004, the defendant was arrested for operating the subject Ford while he was intoxicated. He was driving in the eastbound lane of the service road on the Long Island Expressway in the city of Hauppauge, New York. The defendant was given a breathalyzer test after being taken into custody. The breathalyzer showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.19%, which is above the legal limit. This resulted in the defendant being arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
Debra Aughenbaugh and Lani J. Aughenbaugh are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendants in the case are Napper Tandy’s of Northport, d/b/a Napper Tandy’s and Parkstown, Inc, d/b/a Napper Tandy’s of Smithtown. The third party plaintiff in the case is Parkstown, Inc. d/b/a Napper Tandy’s of Smithtown. The third party defendants are Matthew Borowski and Phoenix 4 Contracting Inc. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Suffolk County. Judge Ralph F. Costello is overseeing the case.
Case Background
A New York DWI Lawyer said this case involves a personal injury action. Lani J. and Aughenbaugh allegedly sustained injuries from an automobile accident that occurred on Route 25 A on the eleventh of August, 2011. The accident occurred when their vehicle came into contact with a vehicle that was being driven by Matthew Borowski. The vehicle driven by Borowski was owned by Phoenix 4 Contracting.
Petitioner GAROFOLO, an inmate in the care and custody of the New York State Department of Correction Services since 1977, is currently incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, Dannemora, New York. He was convicted in 1977 of a sex crime of Rape in the First Degree, Sodomy in the First Degree and Burglary in the Second Degree for his attack on an estranged girlfriend. For these crimes petitioner GAROFOLO received indeterminate concurrent sentences of zero to 25 years each on the rape and sodomy charges and zero to 15 years on the burglary charge. Also, in 1977, New York DWI Lawyer said he was convicted of two counts of Murder in the Second Degree for his killing of Catherine Wilkinson with a police baton. Petitioner GAROFOLO dumped the victim’s body in a wooded area in Suffolk County, near a bar he went to with his victim. For the murder convictions he was sentenced to 25 years to life on each murder count, to be served concurrently with the sex crime of rape, sodomy and burglary sentences.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, petitioner GAROFOLO had his initial Parole Board Release interview, which was his earliest possible release date. At that time, he was denied discretionary parole release. Then, he had three subsequent parole release interviews and was denied parole at each interview. GAROFOLO, after parole denial, perfected and filed an administrative appeal which was ultimately denied. After exhausting his administrative remedies he appealed his parole denial by commencing a petition. Petitioner seeks an order, pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, vacating the July 6, 2008 decision of the New York State Board of Parole (PAROLE BOARD) denying him parole and granting him either immediate release on parole or a de novo parole hearing. Respondent FELIX ROSA (ROSA), Chairman of the BOARD OF PAROLE, opposes the petition and seeks its dismissal.
Petitioner GAROFOLO contends that he was wrongfully denied a discretionary parole release by respondent PAROLE BOARD. The basis of the instant petition is that respondent PAROLE BOARD acted unlawfully because: the term of Parole Commissioner Jennifer Arena, one of the three Parole Commissioners at the July 8, 2008 hearing, had expired; certain comments of Parole Commissioner James B. Ferguson during petitioner’s hearing demonstrated reliance on matters not within the purview of the PAROLE BOARD; and, the PAROLE BOARD’S denial of parole release was based solely on petitioner’s underlying criminal offenses to the exclusion of all other statutorily mandated factors of consideration, which, pursuant to Matter of Russo v New York State Board of Parole is “irrationality bordering on impropriety.”
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog