New York

Published on: April 28, 2012

Police Officer Charged with Domestic Violence

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence is a big problem in the world today. It is an even greater problem when it involves the very police officers who are impressed with the responsibility to protect the citizens from these crimes. In the face of this issue, many states have enacted reporting guidelines that affect police officers in domestic violence situations personally.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said any peace officer who engages in any act of domestic violence will lose their certification as a police officer. It will end their careers. It is because of this that most police officers are very careful to not engage in any act that could be perceived as an act of domestic violence.

In March 1998, a ten-year veteran police officer was admitted to a psychiatric hospital suffering from depression and suicidal ideation. She was out of work for several months and then returned to light-duty. Light duty relieves the officer of the expectation of carrying a weapon. She remained on light duty until September of 2001. After that, she was unable to return to work at all. In 2003, she requested that the police department allow her to retire under full duty disability retirement benefits. She stated that she was permanently disabled due to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The judge denied her request. She then filed an appeal requesting a hearing and a redetermination of the essence of her case. A hearing was held and the Hearing Officer upheld the denial of retirement benefits. She filed another appeal.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Defendant Contends that Key Evidence Proving his Innocence wasnt Allowed

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 10, 1987, a man was convicted of burglary in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, tampering with a witness in the third degree, criminal trespass in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglary tools and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he immediately filed an appeal requesting that his conviction be reversed.

He contends that the trial court committed an error when they refused to allow the defendant to present evidence that he felt was exculpatory to his case. His contention was that his ex-girlfriend, who testified against him was not a reliable witness. He stated that although in trial, she had testified that she was no longer using drugs, that was a lie. He contends that at the time of the trial, she was still using drugs and that the needle marks on her arms were proof of that fact. He states that her testimony that she witnessed the burglary and then he threatened her if she ever told on him was not trustworthy because of her addiction. He further maintained that criminal trespass is a lesser included offense to the felony offense of burglary. He stated that since it is a lesser included offense, that he should not have received a sentence on it separate from the burglary. On this one contention, the justices agreed and reversed his conviction for criminal trespass.

As far as intimidating a witness, the facts of this count of his conviction are uncontested. Directly after committing the offense, the man threatened her about telling anyone what he had done. He intimated that she would encounter violence if she ever told anyone about the burglary. The defendant contends that this threat does not constitute intimidation of a witness because she was not a witness against him at the time. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the offense had occurred after his arrest, then he would have been guilty of attempting to influence a witness. Since it did not occur after the arrest, but before it, he was not intimidating a witness. The justices agree. This count of the charges are overturned and vacated.

Published on: April 27, 2012

Court Discusses Judicial Diversion Program

by Stephen Bilkis

The Drug Reform act of 2009 was created as an effort to divert drug addicts and alcoholics who’s crimes are committed due to their addiction, from the criminal courts and into a treatment facility where they can shed their addiction. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that unfortunately, the temptation of judicial diversion means that many people attempt to take advantage of the system to reduce the time that they will be incarcerated. On such case, a subject had managed to maintain a 20-year career of felony drug crimes. In July of 2009, the subject made a motion to the court to divert his two outstanding drug sales cases to provide him the opportunity to enroll in a long-term residential drug treatment program.

The defendant alleges that even though he has been arrested several times for dealing drugs and for drug crimes in school zones, that he would benefit from a drug treatment program. One evaluator agreed with him, but it was later discovered that he had not mentioned to her that he has never tested positive for alcohol or drugs at the time of any arrest. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he stated that the reason he never had drugs in his system at the time of his arrests was because he was only a “sporadic” user of cocaine.

The state contends that each time the subject was arrested, he was arrested for sale of drugs and not for mere possession or intoxication. The details of his arrests and incarceration reveal the picture of a man who deals drugs for a living. The Drug Rehabilitation Act is aimed at being an intervention program to divert addicts and those who deal only to support their own habit. In this case, even though the defendant claims that he has a drug addiction, the evidence does not support this claim.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Appeal Looks at Defendant’s Special Condition of Parole

by Stephen Bilkis

The Supreme Court modified a special condition of a man’s parole. The said condition forbade him from having any contact with his wife without the permission of his parole officer. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the modified order permitted the man to see his wife during non-curfew hours so long as the wife wished to see him.

On recent years, the man was released on parole subject to seventeen special conditions where he agreed to abide by a curfew established by his parole officer and agreed that he will not associate in any way or communicate by any means with his wife without the permission of the parole officer. While denying the man’s application to vacate the curfew and to allow him to live with his wife, the Supreme Court held that although the condition was not itself a violation of the man’s constitutional rights, it was subjective to deny the man’s visitation during non-curfew hours as long as the wife consented to it. In the ruling, the court noted the wife’s desire to see her husband. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man’s rape conviction occurred before and none of his domestic violence related arrests resulted in convictions. The court finds that the Supreme Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of state division of parole.

Based on records, the imposition of a special condition is discretionary in nature and ordinarily beyond legal review as long as it is made in accordance with law and no positive legal requirement is violated. If the condition is rationally related to the inmate’s past conduct and future chances of recidivism, the Supreme Court has no authority to substitute its own preference for that of the individuals in charge of designing the terms of a man’s parole release. Further, because there is no federal or state constitutional right to be released to parole supervision before serving a full sentence, the state has responsibility to place restrictions on parole release.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Decides Divorce in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

A Jewish couple married in August 1973. At that time, the husband was 22 and the wife was 18. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the husband was in dental school and wife chose to keep house until after the husband finished his dental studies. When the husband became a dentist and had established a dental practice, it was the wife who took care of all the details of the practice including the hiring and firing of his employees.

The wife was able to finish four college degrees during the pendency of her marriage and had taken a licensure examination as a social worker. The wife also set up a foundation that aimed to help Jewish women who were victims of domestic violence get a Jewish divorce.

The couple had four children. At the time of the divorce proceeding in 2004, the two older children were already adults and married with children of their own. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the third child was 20 years old but still in college and was dependent upon the support of his parents. The youngest child was 13 years old.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction of IDV Courts

by Stephen Bilkis

The Court transferred into the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Part a case alleging criminal contempt of court filed against a woman and a family offense case that the woman filed against the complaining witness. On joint application of the Court and the accused, the Court also transferred a subsequently filed criminal case against the woman into the IDV Part. The Court’s application to consolidate the two cases for trial was granted. The family offense case that the woman filed against the complaining witness was dismissed for lack of proper service on an incapacitated person. The woman moves to send her consolidated cases back to Criminal Court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman argues that an Indictment or Superior Court Information is needed to allow misdemeanor cases to be prosecuted in the Supreme Court. The State Court of Appeals has recently rejected the argument and has upheld the authority of the IDV Courts to preside over misdemeanor cases such as the cases.

The woman also argues that upon the dismissal of her family offense petition for lack of service, the criminal cases must be transferred back to the Criminal Court. The woman cites no authority for the proposition and the Court is aware of none.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Respondent Violates Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 15 March 199, petitioner spouse filed a supplemental petition has been, a Family Offense Proceeding, alleging that respondent failed to obey the modified order of protection issued by the court dated 15 November 1993; that respondent on 8 March 1994, upon release from incarceration for prior violation of the order of protection, arrived at petitioner’s residence with police at approximately 1:00 a.m. attempting to gain entry to petitioner’s residence and subsequently on 11 March 1994 that “a car belonging to a friend was towed from petitioner’s driveway, and petitioner thinking the car stolen filed a police report and later learned where the car was towed, and upon inquiring found respondent had filed a complaint and stated to be the owner of the property and claimed that the car was illegally parked and had the car towed where the towing company is demanding payment for towing and storage fees.”

A warrant was issued for respondent’s arrest. Respondent was returned on the warrant on 21 March 1994. In April 1994, a hearing was held and at the conclusion thereof, the court made two findings beyond a reasonable doubt, to wit (1) that on 8 March 1994, respondent willfully violated the final order of protection by attempting to gain entry to petitioner’s residence and (2) that on 11 March 1994, respondent willfully violated the final order of protection by having a vehicle lawfully parked on petitioner’s property towed from that property with false representations by respondent that he was the owner of the property, that the car was unlawfully parked, all to harass and annoy the petitioner. The court’s decision was based on the prior history of family offense activity perpetrated upon petitioner by respondent; the fact that respondent had been committed previously by a court in Nassau County to incarceration for one hundred and eighty days; that respondent apart from that commitment, had been civilly committed by this court for willful violation of the order of protection to incarceration for six months; that respondent upon release from this most recent commitment had almost simultaneously violated the order of protection again on 8 March 1994; that respondent’s behavior indicated an intractable design to continue to annoy and harass petitioner; and considering the welfare not only of petitioner, but of the two children, the court determined to civilly commit the respondent for each of the two willful violation to a term of incarceration of six months for the finding of violation occurring on 8 March 1994 and of four months for the finding of violation occurring on 11 March 1994, to run consecutively.

On 12 April 1994, respondent filed a motion returnable 27 April 1994 seeking re-argument of the dispositional order dated 7 April 1994.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Court Decides Child Custody in Light of Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

On 4 September 1987, a man and a woman (or mother/petitioner and father) got married. Thereafter, on or about 24 July 1996, the couple divorced. A decree of divorce was entered and incorporated the terms of a separation agreement which provided that the parties were to share joint legal custody of their child, but that her primary residence was to be with the mother. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the agreement also provided that the Colorado court was to retain continuing personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the disputes relating to the enforcement of the agreement.

On or about 18 March 1998, the mother suffered a near fatal car accident in Colorado. On or about 22 March 1998, the child left her Colorado home for a previously scheduled visit with her father, who was then residing in Queens County, in New York City. The visit was to conclude on 28 March 1998.

On March 27, however, the father filed a petition in Family Court, Queens County, seeking custody of their child.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Defendant Charged with Weapon Found in Car

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 22, 1982 at around 2:00 am, car was parked in an alley near an apartment building. A man opened the car and sat in the car and slept in there. The man was able to get into the car because the car was owned by a friend of his.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said a resident in the apartment building called the police to report the man sitting in the car. When the police arrived at the scene, they found the car and they found the man sleeping in the car just as the resident of the apartment building described.

The police woke the man up and told him to get out of the car. When the man had gotten out of the car, the police checked and searched the car. Between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat they saw a console. When they checked the console, they found a gun inside the console.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Defedant Contends Police Did Not have Probable Cause for Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

Two uniformed police officers were checking out an illegally parked car near the corner of 39th Street and 9th Avenue at 3am on June 15, 2005. One of them happened to look up and saw a man running. He was coming from the vicinity of 8th Avenue. When the police officers asked him why he was running, the man wouldn’t say. They stopped him and frisked him but found that he was not in possession of a weapon. When the police officers asked him what was going on, he said he had just been robbed. At that time, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the two police officers heard gunshots from the same area where the man had just come from. They reported over the police radio the gunshots fired.

At around the same time, two other police officers in an unmarked police car were in the vicinity of 8th Avenue when they also heard the gunshots fired. They then saw the white SUV they noticed on the street a while back. The SUV fired its engine and started speeding away. The two police officers followed the speeding SUV. They were tailing it when the SUV came to an abrupt halt because they came across the two other uniformed police officers.

The two uniformed police officers were standing on the street with their guns drawn when they heard the screeching of the tires of SUV and the unmarked police car that appeared to be chasing the SUV. A New York Criminal Lawyer said both the SUV and the unmarked police car were coming from the general direction of the area where the gunshots were fired.