New York

Published on: August 15, 2012

Defendant Moves to Have Verdict Struck

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case of appeal. The appellant is James Lavender, who is appealing a verdict that was made by a jury in the Supreme Court of Bronx County on the 19th of March, 1984. This verdict convicted the defendant of attempted rape in the first degree and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life.

Case Background

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the appeal in this case is made by the defendant as a result of a jury trial. A hearing testimony was held and took place over a period of four days. The jury commenced into deliberations at close to 12 p.m. on February 6, 1984. After deliberations and a rereading of some of the testimony of the case, the jury went to their hotel for the night at 11 p.m.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Defendant Contends Miranda Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent of this case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is Martin Tankleff. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. Martin Tankleff is appealing a decision that denied his motion to vacate two judgments from the same court that convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Case Facts

On the 7th of September, 1988, Seymour and Arlene Tankleff were attacked fatally in their home located in Belle Terre, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the police arrived at the scene of the crime, the defendant, who is the son of the victims and was 17 years old at the time, repeatedly told the police that his father’s business partner, Jerard Steuerman committed the murders.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Court Discusses Plea Bargain

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case involving the People of the State of New York against the defendant George P. Tobler. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Criminal Term in Suffolk County, Part I. The defendant of the case has moved to compel a cooperation agreement with the plaintiff’s. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he states that he will provide information in support of indictments of others in exchange for consent by the District Attorney to a plea of a lesser charge against him and a recommendation that he should not be incarcerated.

Additionally, the defendant seeks a dismissal of the indictment because of the legal insufficiency of the Grand Jury minutes, prosecutorial misconduct, and selective prosecution. Following this relief he moves for a change of venue and discover and inspection.

Case Background

Published on: August 14, 2012

Court Discusses Waiver of Right to Appeal

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard before the Supreme Court, Appellant Division, Second Department of the State of New York. The respondent in this matter is the People of the State of New York. Jay Jomar Bradshaw is the appellant of the case.

The defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Kings County Supreme Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the judgment convicted him of rape in the first degree after he pleaded guilty to the crime. The appeal will review the denial of the charges after a hearing for suppression of identification.

Case Background

Published on: August 14, 2012

Defendant Claims Ineffective Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Floyd F. The Criminal Court of the City of New York in Kings County is hearing this case. The defendant has motioned to have his plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the third degree vacated. The plea was taken on the 10th of November, 1994 and he was convicted for the crime on the 12th of January, 1995.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant is requesting that the judgment against him be vacated based upon ineffective counsel and because the plea was entered without him fully understanding what it met. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant argues that when he entered the plea of guilty he was not informed by his attorney of the potential immigration consequences. He states that if he had known about these consequences he would have chosen to not enter the plea and would have gone to trial instead.

Published on: August 13, 2012

Court Finds Issues with Search

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case before the Justice Court of the City of New York in Nassau County. The defendants in this matter are Juana and Jose Ventura. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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. 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: August 13, 2012

Defendant Requests Disclosure of Exculpatory Materials

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is Michael Brown. He has made an omnibus motion requesting several forms of relief. The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The County Court of the City of New York in Suffolk County is hearing the case.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s omnibus motion has requested discovery pursuant to CPL 240.20. The People have answered that they have provided their entire discovery to the defense. The defendant has not submitted a reply to contest the sufficiency of the answer that was provided by the People. For this reason, it seems that the request has been complied with.

Published on: August 13, 2012

Defendant Appeals a Ruling for Malicious Prosecution

by Stephen Bilkis

Bronx County Rape 7

Alberto Ramos is the appellant and respondent of this particular case. The respondent and appellant of the matter is the City of New York.

Case Background

Published on: August 12, 2012

Court Hears Drug Fraud Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent and defendant in this case is J. Milford Kirkup Jr. 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 Albert Freistadt, 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: August 12, 2012

Defendant Claims Entrapment

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal by the defendant Jesus Torres. 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. A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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

In 1985, the defendant, Jesus Torres, 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.