DWI / DUI

Published on: July 11, 2012

Court Discusses Rehabilitation Program for Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this matter is the State of New York. The respondent of the case is John VanDuyn Southworth. Southworth is responding both for himself and as the executor of the estate of Alice Keegan Southworth, deceased. The case is being heard in the Fourth Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The case before the court involves an issue involving an experimental driver’s rehabilitation program that was established by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. The question before the court is whether the state of New York can be held liable for issuing an interim driver’s license to a person that has a record of alcohol related driving violations.

Case Background

Published on: July 11, 2012

Court Listens to Motion for Summary Judgement

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: July 11, 2012

Court Decides Case Where Defendant is Police Officer

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the state of New York. The appellant in the matter is Charles O. Sharkey. The respondents in the matter are the Police Department of the town of South Hampton, et al.

The petitioner is appealing a decision that was made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County on the 18th of December, 1989. The Suffolk County Supreme Court dismissed the case, which was a review of a determination that was made by the Police Department in the town of South Hampton. The Police Department had terminated the petitioner’s employment after he pleads guilty to the misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated (DWI).

Case Background and Discussion

Published on: July 9, 2012

Parole Board Decides Whether to Grant Discretionary Parole Release

by Stephen Bilkis

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.”

Published on: July 8, 2012

Court Allows Use of Expert Witness to Establish False Confession was Made

by Stephen Bilkis

Queens Rape 16

The People of the State of New York are the respondents of the case. The appellant of the case is Khemwattie Bedessie. The case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York.

The appellant, Khemwattie Bedessie has asked for the time to consider the testimony from an expert based on the issue of reliability of the confession. A New York DWI Lawyer said in certain cases expert testimony for false confessions are admitted, the expert in this particular case did not offer a testimony that was relevant to the defendant or this particular interrogation. As a result of this the trial judge did not abuse the discretion to hold a Frye hearing in the matter to determine whether the expert that offered testimonies was offering information that is generally accepted within the science community.

Published on: July 7, 2012

Defendant Contends Error in Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

Judges Peter B. Skelos, J.P., Ruth C. Balkin, Joseph Covello, and Sandra L. Sgroi, JJ are overseeing this case that is being heard in the Second Judicial Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in the case. The appellant in the case is Luis Gomez. The People are represented by Sharon Y. Brodt and John M. Castellano from the District Attorney’s office of Kew Gardens, New York. The appellant is represented by Rober DiDio from Kew Gardens.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment that was made by the Queens County Supreme Court on the 11th of January, 2008. The judgment found the defendant guilty of rape and course of sexual conduct against a child both in the second degree, first degree sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child.

Published on: July 6, 2012

Defendant Claims Right to a Speedy Trial was Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal being heard in the First Judicial Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The People of the State of New York are the respondents. The defendant and appellant of the case is Clarence Williams who is also known under the name Fletcher Anderson Worrell.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of New York County that convicted him of robbery in the first degree and rape in the first degree. The issue in front of the court is whether or not the statutory and constitutional rights of the defendant for a speedy trial were violated. The additional issue in this case is whether there should have been an inquiry of the jurors as to whether they had read anything in the newspaper about the trial before it began.

Case Background

Published on: July 4, 2012

Defendant Contends Secretary of Judge was Bribed

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. The matter involves the attorneys Seymour S. Detsky and Herbert S. Kassner, who are also the respondents in the case. The petitioners in the case are Michael A. Gentile and Jeremiah B. McKenna.

The petitioners of this case, Michael A. Gentile and Jeremiah B. McKenna were directed to act as counsel and investigate the existence of unethical and improper practices engaged in by the respondent attorneys. The improper practices include representing sexually oriented enterprises.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the petitioners have moved to confirm the order that was made by Referee Frank J. McNabb that recommends charges that were made against Herbert S. Kassner are dismissed. It is also recommended that respondent Seymour S. Detsky should be disbarred. This report was referred to the court by a Notice of Motion made by the petitioner and dated the 30th of December, 1982.

Published on: July 3, 2012

Court Discusses Concept of Collateral Estoppel

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner in this case is Darryl Nelson. The respondent is Ann B. Dufficy, Justice of the Supreme Court of the state of New York in Queens County. The case is being heard in the Second Department of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division. The Justice presiding over the case is Mangano.

Case Background

Darryl Nelson, the petitioner in this case was charged by the Queensboro Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children for child abuse. A New York DWI Lawyer said the petition issued by the Queensboro Society states that Nelson had committed a sex offense against his step daughter, who was 8 years old. He is accused of kissing her on the mouth and lying on top of her and rubbing up and down on her.

Published on: July 3, 2012

Court Looks at Whether Agreement Between the Parties is Enforceable

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the plaintiff Laura J. Donnell and the defendant Conrad Y. Stogel. The case is being heard during the IA term in the Queens County Supreme Court. The plaintiff is represented by David Grais from the law offices of Grais & Richards. The defendant is represented by William J. Davis from the law offices of Schulman, Berlin & Davis. Justice Edwin Kassoff is overseeing the case.

The action before the court is dealing with a contract that both the parties entered on 1982 when they stopped living together. The defendant has made a motion for the complaint from the plaintiff to be dismissed.

Case Background