New York

Published on: October 29, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of the People of the State of New York versus the defendant, G.R. The case is being heard in the Criminal Court of the City of New York in Bronx County. The defendant has moved to set aside the sentence that has been imposed on him. He basis his argument for this motion on the ground that the sentence was unauthorized, illegally imposed, or otherwise invalid as a matter of the law.

Court Discussion

The instant case at hand deals with the Mental Hygiene Law. This law was originally enacted in April of 1966. The purpose of this law was to provide a comprehensive plan that covers the care, treatment, and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts.

Published on: October 28, 2012

Appellate Court Reverses Indictment for Larceny Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent and defendant in this case is M.K. The People of the State of New York are the appellants in the case. The Court of Appeals in the state of New York is hearing this case. There were two indictments filed against the defendant, Kirkup, in the Extraordinary Special and the Trial Terms of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Indictment 7256 charged the defendant with committing the crime of conspiracy. Indictment 7258 charges the defendant of violating section 1864 of the Penal Law.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People of the State of New York submitted evidence to the Grand Jury that showed that A.F., who is a pharmacist that operates a small retail drug store in Suffolk County along with his successors in interest had ordered drugs from pharmaceutical houses solely for the use of the Suffolk County Home, but in actuality for selling to the public.

Published on: October 28, 2012

Defendant Claims Rights Were Violated in Search

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case before the Justice Court of the City of New York in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York.

Case Background

There was reason to believe that the defendants were living in a home that was over occupied. An affidavit was submitted to support the warrant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in the affidavit it was shown that there was reason to believe that up to 25 people were currently living in different areas of the premises. This is a violation of the rental code and there had been several complaints regarding the premises.

Published on: October 27, 2012

Court Rules on Use of Public Health Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter dealing with an application made by P.H., the District Attorney of Suffolk County. He has entered a petition for a judgment and determination of forfeiture under Article 33, Section 3388 of the Public Health Law of the State of New York. The respondent of the case is S.C. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Criminal Term in Suffolk County, Part II.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on the 3rd of September, 1980, the defendant – respondent S.C entered a plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. This plea satisfied the seven charges that were made against him in an indictment. The defendant was then sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one to three years.

Published on: October 26, 2012

Court Discusses CASAT Treatment Program

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter of an application made by the petitioner Ronald M. in regard to a judgment that was filed in the Franklin County Clerks office on the 29th of January, 2008. The respondent in the case is Brian F. who is the Commissioner for the NYS Department of Correctional Services. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Franklin County.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on the 21st of November, 2006, the petitioner was sentenced in the Suffolk County Court as a second felony offender. His sentence was set at five years with two years of post release supervision. This sentence was for his conviction of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance (drug possession).

Published on: October 26, 2012

Court Dismisses Indictment Against Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal by the defendant J.T.. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The judgment was rendered on the 19th, 1989 and convicted him of the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 1985, the defendant, J.T., and his business partner ran a successful roofing business in Suffolk County. They had the business for several years. For several years the defendant, his wife, his business partner, and several of their mutual friends were weekend cocaine users. The defendant used one gram of cocaine a week and this was supplied to him by his business partner.

Published on: October 25, 2012

Court Discusses Validity of Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York against three defendants. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County Part II. The defendants in the case, they have been charged with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree(drug possession). One defendant Daphne Barber has also been charged with criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.

Defendants Argument

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendants have motioned both orally and in writing for two search warrants that were issued on the 24th of June and the 2nd of July in 1981 to be removed and for all the evidence including the cocaine that was seized to be suppressed. Defendant Eric Jean did not move with respect to the indictments against him and is not a part of this hearing.

Published on: October 25, 2012

Court Dismisses Indictment Against Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The case deals with an appeal being made by O. B. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant is appealing a verdict from a judgment made by the County Court of Suffolk County that was rendered on the 8th of May, 1979 and convicted him of criminally negligent homicide.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s guilt in this matter was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. At the time of the incident the defendant was driving his vehicle with three passengers inside it. He was going approximately 35 miles an hour. All of the passengers had smoked marijuana. Quite suddenly, one of the passengers told the defendant to stop the car. The passenger was a fifteen year old girl. At first the defendant ignored her and continued to drive. She continuously repeated her request for the car to be stopped and threatened to jump out of the car if he did not stop.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Defendant Appeals Based on Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, the state presented evidence about a pharmacologist who was a member of a conspiracy to procure heroin. The pharmacologist and his accomplices were guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance based on a series of events that commenced in the state. Even if the jury found him guilty of both the crime, on appeal, he challenges the state’s exercise of territorial jurisdiction over the second offense only.

The evidence revealed that the leader of the conspiracy was a man. A New York Criminal Lawyer said through a wiretap surveillance of the telephone line to the leader’s residence, the law enforcement authorities discovered that the leader was raising $120,000 to pay a courier fee to obtain a large quantity of heroin to the state. he intercepted conversations cryptically identified the various players in the proposed drug exchange. The state theorized that the pharmacologist’s role in the project was to test the purity of the heroin.

The leader and another individual discussed the pharmacologist’s availability for the project. Upon receiving a telephone call advising that the pharmacologist had been located. Thereafter, a woman used the leader’s telephone to make airline reservations for three men to fly at 8:00 p.m. that evening and all of them were under the same surnames. The law enforcement authorities observed the pharmacologist together with two other men aboard the flight. At the request of an investigator, a state’s troop followed the activities of the three men. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after registering at the airport’s hotel under aliases, they were seen entering and leaving each other’s rooms during the next 24 hours.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Court Discusses Possession with Intent to Distribute Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant’s convictions arose from a series of drug transactions which began when a certain person contacted another person and informed the latter that he had heroin for sale. The former was unaware that the latter was a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). A New York Criminal Lawyer said the parties and co-defendant agreed that the former would sell the informant 25 ounces of heroin for $6,000 per ounce. While the co-defendant was in Mexico he ran into the defendant who offered to drive him to Texas. He agreed and the two men drove to the border. As they approached the border the co-defendant told the defendant that he wished to walk across the border and would meet the defendant on the United States side. The defendant drove the vehicle across the border while co-defendant walked across carrying the one gram sample of heroin.

A Houston Heroin Possession Lawyer said that, the defendant and his co-defendant drove to the informant’s apartment where they met the informant and an Agent outside the apartment. The defendant and the Agent remained outside in their respective vehicles while co-defendant and the informant went inside. When the two men left the apartment the Agent saw co-defendant hand informant a piece of paper later found to contain .12 grams of heroin (drug possession). The informant gave the paper to the Agent. Co-defendant, the informant and the Agent then discussed the purchase of a test ounce and the full 25 ounce shipment. The defendant drove the co-defendant to another apartment where he met with the certain John doe while the defendant remained outside in the vehicle.

Later that evening co-defendant and the informant took one ounce of heroin to the Agent’s motel room and sold it to him for $5,000 cash. Co-defendant returned to Mexico where he processed the remaining ounces of heroin. The defendant came into the apartment while this processing was being done. The next morning co-defendant secreted heroin in the stereo speaker of his vehicle. After doing so he asked the defendant for help in replacing the screws. The two men then drove to the informant’s apartment in the United States. While en route into town co-defendant advised the defendant that what he was doing was not honest and that he should not get involved in similar “deals”. When co-defendant and the defendant arrived at the informant’s apartment the defendant carried the heroin into the apartment. Later the three men left for the Agent’s motel with the defendant driving. Co-defendant, believing they were being followed, directed the defendant to return to the informant’s apartment. Co-defendant and the informant then drove to the Agent’s motel to deliver the heroin and the defendant left. Co-defendant was arrested as he delivered the heroin to the Agent. Defendant was arrested near Hidalgo, Texas.