Nassau

Published on: July 20, 2012

Court Discusses Search Warrants

by Stephen Bilkis

The issue of search warrants and the rights of Americans to be free from illegal and unreasonable search and seizure in their own homes is balanced by the responsibility of the legislature and law enforcement to ensure that those laws are fair and enforced lawfully. What that means is that a judge has to be very conscious of the impact that signing a search warrant has on the community as a whole. A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said that every time that a search warrant is signed in the United States, a judge is permitting law enforcement to encroach on the sanctity of the home that the warrant is for. In criminal cases, the lines are often drawn clearly. However, in civil cases involving code violations, the laws are not so clear.

One case that involved a search warrant for a code violation occurred on September 25, 2003 when a judge in the Village of Westbury in Nassau, New York, signed a search warrant on a code violation. The code violation was for running an illegal boarding house in the Village. The investigation that resulted in the issuance of the warrant was a lengthy one. The details of the warrant that established that an illegal boarding house was being operated in the Village involved months of stakeouts and a recording of numerous license plates that demonstrated that more than one family was living in the one family dwelling house. In fact, the warrant was issued for evidence of more than one family including locked doors to individual rooms, illegal plumbing, and multiple vehicles located at the residence. A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said the warrant was signed by a Village judge based on the facts that were presented by a code enforcement officer to the judge. The details of the evidence were well documented and the warrant was issued. The judge placed on the warrant that it could be executed by any police officer of the County of Nassau.

However, a code enforcement officer is not usually considered a police officer. A code enforcement officer is more commonly considered a peace officer of the state of New York. So in essence, the officer who obtained and possessed the warrant was not named as an official for the purposes of executing the warrant. However, the code enforcement officer took with him several police officers of the County of Nassau to execute the warrant, so that issue became moot. The problem with the warrant was that during the execution of the warrant, several of the law enforcement officers photographed occupants and asked questions of the occupants.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Court Considers Reversing Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A member of the New York City Police Department was detailed to work with the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force (Task Force). His usual assignment with the Task Force was as an undercover officer (office-one), and that was the assignment he was performing, when, on 16 July 1981, he met with an informant who later introduced him with the co-defendant

Thereafter, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said meetings were set and arrangements were made for officer-one to buy quantities of cocaine. The co-defendant said that he could deliver a pound from someone that he knew, the herein defendant. Accompanied by another officer (officer-two), upon their meet, defendant only promised to deliver two ounces of cocaine for the reason that they didn’t know each other. Subsequently, the parties agreed to buy the two ounces of cocaine. Shortly after officer-two produced a brown bag with money, and, while defendant was looking into the money bag, officer-two placed defendant under arrest.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Girl Being a Guest on Talk Show Ends with Rape

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother and a grandmother of a teenage girl filed a complaint of negligence act to one talk show. The show moved to dismiss the complaint brought by the complainants. The complainants allege that the show’s negligent actions are connected with the show’s motion on the chain of events which concluded with the girl’s rape.

It was started when the mother contacted a solicited show who presents out-of-control teen guests. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that during conversations with the mother and grandmother, the show’s staff was advised that the girl was 14 years old, undergoing counseling, and taking medication for emotional illness, as well as that she recently had attempted suicide. The girl also lost a close immediate family member and reported sexual intercourse with one twenty nine year old man and five boys who were under age sixteen. It was agreed between the mother and the show that the teen would appear on the show and the show would provide the teen with follow-up psychological counseling and a corrective teen boot camp. The show will also provide the transportation, hotel arrangements and pay related expenses of the girl. The show further asked the mother and the grandmother to accompany the girl on the trip. Consequently, the girl, her mother and her grandmother were picked up by a limousine in their hometown and transported to a midtown hotel.

On the day of the taping at the studio, a woman and a show staff allegedly told the girl to act sexually provocative and also requested to look sexier by wearing her thigh-length top without slacks. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that in accord with that theme, the girl claims that her sexual experience was exaggerated five-fold during the show.

Published on: July 15, 2012

Court Holds that Verbal Testing of an Intoxicated Person is Allowed

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant in the case is Davis I. Shakemma. The case is being herd in the First District of the District Court of Suffolk County in the state of New York. Judge Lawrence Donohue is presiding over the case.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant of the case has been charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which is in violation of Traffic Law section 1192. The defendant has been charged with using marijuana. A probable cause, Huntley, and refusal hearing has been held in the matter.

Case Background

Published on: July 13, 2012

Court Finds Attorney in the Case Guilty of a Felony

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with the respondent Lewis Novod who is an attorney and counselor at law. The petitioner in the matter is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and First Department.

Case Background

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the respondent, Lewis Novod was admitted to practice law in the state of New York by the First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the state of New York on the 14th of October, 1972. The respondent has maintained his practice of law in the First Judicial Department.

Published on: July 12, 2012

Court Orders Attorney Suspended

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 at hand deals with the attorney and respondent of the case, Eric Alan Klein. The petitioner in the case is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the respondent was admitted to the bar on the 7th of March, 1984. This occurred during a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. The respondent was admitted to the bar under the name of Eric Alan Klein.

Case Background

Published on: July 11, 2012

Defendant Calls for Summary Judgement

by Stephen Bilkis

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. or “MERS” as the nominee for the America’s Wholesale Lender and its successors are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendants in the matter are Carole Folkes, the New York City Environmental Control Board, Baront Associates, LLC, the Judication Bureau, the New York City Transit, and John Doe (name is being withheld). The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Judge Schlesinger is hearing the case.

Case Background

The action for this case started in 2005 and should have been a straightforward matter involving a foreclosure. However, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said there have been several issues that have come up in regard to the issue. The action has required an intervenor, Baron Associates, LLC. Baron filed a cross claim against the defendant Carole Folkes and another counter claim against the plaintiff Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The index number for the case is 2005, but a note of issue was not filed in the matter until December of 2009.

Published on: July 10, 2012

Court Discusses RICO Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Robert Ritchie et al are the respondents in the matter. The appellant in this case is Carvel Corporation. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Second Department.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the appellant is represented by Jeffery A. Klatzkow from Yonkers. The respondents are represented by Herzfield & Rubin, P.C. from New York City. David B. Hamm, Herbert Rubin, Linda M. Brown, and Peter Kurshan are acting as counsel for the respondents.

The case is being heard in front of Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Harwood, and Rosenblatt, JJ.

Published on: July 9, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1992, the appellant was charged and convicted with sex crimes namely rape and sexual abuse. In 1994, he was paroled and was found to have violated the parole. Subsequently, he was convicted for the criminal sale of a controlled substance and applied for parole. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said while on parole, he was convicted of attempted rape for forcing himself upon the 68-year old mother of his then-girlfriend. He was sentenced to 8 years of incarceration. While incarcerated, he was further convicted of attempted rape in the first degree based on a rape he committed in July 1996.

A nonjury trial was formed to hear the case of the appellant. After which, it found that the appellant was a “detained sex offender” under article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, also known as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act. The Supreme Court then conducted a dispositional hearing, after which it determined that the appellant was a dangerous [84 A.D.3d 1100] sexual offender requiring civil confinement and ordered such confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.07[f]).

A psychiatrist, the State’s expert, testified that the appellant suffers from, among other things, paraphilia NOS (not otherwise specified) and antisocial personality disorder. He detailed the appellant’s specific pattern of deviant sexual arousal [84 A.D.3d 1101] and his inability to control his impulses. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he testified that the appellant, because of his condition and the resulting symptoms, was predisposed to committing sexual offenses and had serious difficulty controlling such behavior.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Court Assesses SORA Statute in Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

The defendant appeared before the Court for a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. The defendant has a criminal history which dates back to the 1950’s and includes a number of crimes committed in Virginia, viz: Rape in Virginia, in 1955; Felony Cutting with Intent to Maim in Virginia, in 1957; Rape in 1962; and Arson in the Second Degree in New York, in 1985.

First, A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant moved to have the Court declare SORA unconstitutional as applied and use the Static 99 rather than the SORA Risk Assessment Instrument (the “RAI”) to determine his risk for re-offense. He argues that the SORA Risk Assessment Instrument does not measure the risk of re-offense, as it purports to do, but reflects a moral judgment about how blameworthy sexually offending behavior is. He describes the instrument and risk level determinations under SORA as punitive rather than regulatory. For this reason, he alleges, the statute is unconstitutional.