New York

Published on: August 12, 2012

Court Determines if Delay between Incident and Arrest was Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case, Richard Connor, is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The judgment convicted the appellant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The appeal brings up issues of denial of the defendant’s omnibus motion that was to dismiss the indictment and to suppress identification testimony. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Case Background

In June of 1984, in response to numerous complaints made by residents in the Wyandanch, Long Island, area that the community was becoming an open drug market, an undercover operation was conducted by the Suffolk County Police.

Published on: August 12, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case for appeal being heard in the Third Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the State of New York. Mark S. is the appellant of the case and the State of New York is the respondent. Mark S. is appealing two orders that were made by the Supreme Court. The orders found the appellant to be to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to treatment in a secure facility.

Case Background

The defendant has an extensive criminal and psychiatric history that includes being convicted for two rapes and forcibly touching three different females. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he was charged with third degree rape, third degree sodomy, and endangering the welfare of a child by having sexual relations with a girl who was less that 17 years old in June of 2003. The defendant states that the sex with the young girl was consensual and he thought that she was 17, even though he had been told that she was younger. He pled guilty to the third degree rape charge in May of 2004 to satisfy all of the charges that were made against him. He was sentenced to five months in jail and ten years of probation.

Published on: August 11, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Suffolk County Court. The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Kenneth Murray. The defendant has been accused of acting in concert with another in commission of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said Murray has moved for the charges against him to be dismissed on the account that the indictment is defective and that it was not found on legally sufficient evidence.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant argues that the indictment is deficient as it fails to conform to CPL section 200.30, subdivision 7. This section requires that a plain and concise factual statement of each count must be made. It further states that the defendant must be clearly apprised as to the matter of the accusation that is made against him.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Looks at White Collar Crime

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, there have been several issues that have come up in regard to the issue. The action has required an intervenor, Baron Associates, LLC. A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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: August 10, 2012

Defendant Alleges Jury Misconduct

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents and Zachary R. Gibian is the appellant in this case being held in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that was issued on the 17th of January, 2007 and convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Defendant’s Argument

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant identifies three grounds for this appeal to reverse his conviction. The first is for the preclusion on the grounds of hearsay of the statements that were made by the defendant’s mother. The second is juror misconduct during deliberations. The third is the summary curtailment of the closing statement made by the defense counsel.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Orders New Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is taking place in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. The appellant in the matter is the People of the State of New York. The respondent in the case is Frederick Wilkinson. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment made by the County Court of Suffolk County that convicted him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled sentence in the third degree.

The issue being argued on appeal is whether admission of evidence that the defendant, who was on trial for a single sale of cocaine, sold drugs to the same buyer on more than one occasion was an error in the case that requires a new trial in the matter.

Case Background

Published on: August 9, 2012

Court Looks at Legality of State Statute

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainant trader who committed an error was indicted and convicted, under the Revised Statutes of the State, for the criminal act of selling liquor without a license. The indictment contained several specifications but they were all similar.

The jurors, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, upon their oath present, that a trader man from Georgetown, in said county, he not being then and there first licensed as a retailer of wine and spirits, as provided in the Revised Statutes of said Commonwealth, and without any license therefor duly had according to law, did presume to be, and was, a retailer of wine, brandy, rum, and spirituous liquors, to a buyer, in a less quantity than twenty-eight gallons, and that delivered and carried away all at one time, and did then and there sell to the said buyer, two quarts of spirituous liquors, and no more, against the peace of said Commonwealth and the form of the statute in such case made and provided.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said a criminal conviction having taken place under the indictment upon the statutes, the trader filed several exceptions. It appeared upon the trial that some of the sales charged in the indictment were of foreign liquors, and his Honor directed the jury that the license law of the Commonwealth applied as well to imported spirits as to domestic, and that the Commonwealth could constitutionally control the sale of foreign spirits by retail, and that said law is not inconsistent with constitution or revenue laws of the United States. The accused trader excluded to the ruling.

Published on: August 9, 2012

Court Hears White Collar Crime Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

White collar crimes have long been considered the type of crime where appropriate punishment for the actions is not received. In many cases, deals are struck between the offender and the suspect that are designed to reduce the public exposure of the crime and there is no consideration for the actual punishment of the offender. While there have been many cases in which this has happened, one in particular stands out. It involved a man who was working as the assistant comptroller at Long Island College Hospital in the Prospect Heights Division. A New York Criminal Lawyer said while he was employed in this position, he received numerous checks that were made payable to the hospital, but that he endorsed and deposited into his own personal bank account.

When the actions of this man became known to the hospital, the man was terminated and an audit was conducted to determine the extent of his embezzlement. They determined that between 1967 and 1972, the man embezzled $68,000. He admitted to the theft and he was arrested. He served five days in jail after his arraignment. During this time, he met with the insurance provider for the hospital. They decided between them that he would pay a little over $10,000 in restitution to the hospital. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the insurance company would provide the remainder of the money that he stole to the hospital. In return for his restitution, the prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor crime and that he would get three years of probation. They agreed with the court that everyone was satisfied with this arrangement. However, once the restitution was paid and the case went in front of the judge, the judge refused to accept the deal.

The judge determined that the man was currently living in Connecticut in a new house that was remodeled. The man had a new job working in Connecticut and there were rumors that he had stolen much more from the hospital than the $68,000 that he had been charged with. It seems that the hospital lost all of the records that it had prior to 1967 in a flood. The man had been an employee of the hospital for several years before 1967. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that some of the estimates placed the amount stolen well in excess of six digits. The judge determined that the defendant should serve one year in jail and three years on probation. The defendant and the prosecution objected to the change in the proposed arrangements. The prosecution stated that the hospital had received restitution of the entire amount that it lost and that the state should not be concerned that only $10,000 of that came from the defendant.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Court Discusses Prima Facie Evidence Provision

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondents committed criminal acts of burning a cross and properties during a gathering. They were convicted of violating Virginia’s cross-burning statute, Sec. 18.2-423.

The statute provides:

“It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Defendant Contends Pat Down Was Illegal

by Stephen Bilkis

Police officers are required to operate under strict adherence to the laws of the state. That means that every time that a police officer comes in contact with a citizen, they are required to operate under certain rules. A New York Criminal Lawyer said these rules are mandated in the United States Constitution, state laws, federal laws, local ordinances, and case law. In order to determine if the officers have overstepped their authority under the law, it is often critical that a defendant hire a good criminal attorney to represent their side.

The rules of search and seizure and admissibility of evidence can be very complicated and they are often argued in a court of law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said each case is different, and each case requires that the persons who are affected by the conduct of police officers on the street are well represented. One case that illustrates this issue occurred in New York on May 14, 1985.

Two patrol officers were patrolling the area of Eighth Avenue around 136th street. It was in the early morning hours of about 2:30 a.m. when they were flagged down by a well- dressed man who was standing beside the road. When they talked to him, he told them that he had been leaving a bar in the area when he noticed a man in front of the bar with a pistol tucked down the front of his pants. The man described the pistol as a small revolver that was commonly referred to as a snub nose. He stated that it was black in color and was in the front of the man’s pants. The complainant was especially concerned because he was afraid that the man was considering a hate crime against the homosexual population in the area. The bar that he had been in front of was a bar that catered to the homosexual population. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the complainant advised that he had followed the man and his companion as they left the area of the bar hoping to flag down a police officer to have him checked out. He described the man with the gun as a short black male in a white t-shirt and dark blue jeans. He stated that he was in the company of a man in a darker shirt with light blue jeans.