New York

Published on: April 9, 2012

Defendant Tries to Manipulate Court System to Intimidate Wife

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence issues are complicated. For many years, it was easier for the American judicial system to simply not deal with it. The political climate has changed and with it, the domestic violence laws have changed. We now understand that domestic violence is about control. Sometimes, an abuser cannot accept that the control over the other person has been removed by the state. In some cases, the aggressor attempts to control the court by manipulating the legal system. This type of behavior offensive to the judges and will turn the judges favor away from that person.

In one case like this, which was heard in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County on October 1, 2010, the situation began on May 5, 2010. A man filed a petition to the court on June 30, 2010 claiming that his wife had illegally locked him out of their apartment located at 1880 Valentine Avenue in the Bronx. However, neither party appeared in court and the petition was dismissed. On July 12, 2010, the man filed a second petition alleging that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment. This time he claimed that the lock out had happened in February of 2010. This time, the wife appeared in court, but the husband did not. The court dismissed the man’s petition again.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man filed a third petition to the court. This time he claimed that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment on July 16, 2010. In this petition, he stated that he had called the police. When the police arrived, they ordered him to leave. Both parties appeared in court on July 23, 2010 in reference to this petition. At that time, the court was notified that on July 16, 2010, Bronx County Family Court had issued each party a Temporary Order of Protection against the other. The wife’s Protection Order directed the husband to stay away from the wife and the three minor children who live with her at 1880 Valentine Avenue. These orders expressly stated that the husband was excluded from that residence. He was also ordered to stay away from the wife’s place of work and not to have any communication with any of the people who lived in the apartment. This is most certainly why the police ordered the husband to leave when they were called to the apartment. Family Court did order that the father could have visitation with his infant child at a location away from the apartment. At that time, the court order for visitation listed the husband’s address as 1160 Wheeler Avenue in the Bronx. The court determined that Family Court was the best resolution to the dispute and dismissed the petition that the husband had filed.

Published on: April 8, 2012

Court Hears Tragic Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Sometimes, the stories that create law are so horrendous that they speak directly to our hearts. It is at that time that you realize how important the law is. It is also when you realize how important another person’s job can be to the lives of others. In many cases, overworked and underpaid civil servants lose sight of how important their calling is. When that happens, they can drop the ball and cut corners. Cut corners always lead to a bad ending.

In New York, the job of the Clinton County Department of Social Services encompasses the assessment of homes to determine if children are deprived or neglected. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the primary goal of the social worker is to work with the parents to keep the child in their natural born home, if at all possible. Sometimes, it is not possible. Sometimes, the social worker does not keep the paperwork as meticulously as it should be kept. Sometimes, it is not possible for the social worker to predict that the parents who are not beating their children or leaving them without food might be the biggest risk to the children in their care.

On March 31, 2010, a set of twins was born to a young couple in Clinton County, New York. One was a boy named Zachary and the other, his twin sister, Zoe. On July 26, 2010, the New York State Central Registry received a complaint that the twins were being abused or mistreated. The department sent a social worker to the home and discovered that the couple engaged in domestic violence in the direct presence of the twins. There was no information recorded about how this information was received, and no documentation of any steps taken to council the parents. The documentation states that the caseworker recommended that the couple engage in mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment. However, there is no documentation about why these steps were recommended. There is no documentation of any mental health problems or substance abuse associated with the report.

Published on: April 7, 2012

Court Rules on Domestic Violence and Child Neglect Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

In domestic violence cases, the law states that if an incident of domestic violence occurs in the presence of a child, that the involved parties are charged with the offense of cruelty to children, child neglect, or child abuse. Sometimes, the victim is inadvertently charged with child neglect.

In the heat of the moment when handling domestic violence calls, officers are called upon to make immediate judgments. Sometimes, these judgments are made mistakenly and the wrong party is charged in relationship to the incident. The statute orders officers to charge the primary aggressor of the domestic violence assault. Sometimes, it is not immediately clear which party involved in a domestic dispute is the primary aggressor. A New York Criminal Lawyer said these calls are complicated and emotionally charged. Many times, officers rely on the court system to sort through the involvements because they will see the incident after everyone has cooled off. Unfortunately, the courts are also overburdened and court officers have the same problems sorting out the issues. This was the case in an appeal that was requested on August 10, 2010.

A young mother was assaulted by her boyfriend in her home in front of her child. The altercation was volatile and police were called to the scene. The officer interviewed the child and the child stated that he was scared and nervous during the assault. Both the mother and her boyfriend were charged with child neglect. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said when the case came to court, social services had already determined that the incidence of domestic violence had been isolated. The boyfriend was determined to be the primary aggressor. The mother had broken her relationship with the boyfriend and the incident was established to have been an isolated encounter.

Published on: April 7, 2012

Domestic Violence Escalates into Murder Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence is a popular topic these days. Better and stronger domestic violence laws have gone in to effect. The truth about domestic violence is that it is cyclical. It follows a regular cycle that begins with a honeymoon phase where everything is wonderful. The abuser is loving and attentive. Then the abuser begins to pick at the other party. They begin verbally abusing them. From there the cycle heats up until violence breaks out. After the violent episode is over, the abuser tends to go back to the honeymoon cycle again. They promise that they will never abuse their spouse again. However, they do, the cycle continues to repeat itself. Each time the cycle completes, it becomes shorter. The honeymoon phase doesn’t last as long and the abuse phase lasts longer. That is the normal progression. Experience also tells us that the most dangerous time for the victim is shortly after they decide to leave. As soon as they separate, the victim should begin to take steps to protect themselves and any minor children. Unfortunately, many victims do not know what danger they are in.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer on early April of 1998, a wife and husband filed separation papers in Spafford, Onondaga County, New York. Apparently, the wife did not recognize the danger that she was in during this separation stage. The couple continued to reside in the same house following the signing of the separation agreement. On April 21, only a couple of weeks after they separated, they had a heated argument. It was early in the morning just before dawn when the argument became physical. The later investigation revealed that the husband beat the wife about the head with an aluminum baseball bat in front of her two small children. Evidence revealed that during the beating, the wife told her children to call the police because their father was trying to kill her.

After the wife collapsed with a visible indent in her temple, he called his parents and not an ambulance or medical help. When his parents arrived they brought the husband’s brother and a family friend who was a doctor. The police were finally notified and when they arrived, they found the wife lying on the kitchen floor writhing around in her own blood and moaning unintelligibly. The husband had some scratches and minor cuts. A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer they were taken to different hospitals for treatment.

Published on: April 6, 2012

Family Court and Criminal Court have Concurrent Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever an incident of domestic violence occurs, the courts and law enforcement officers are required to file reports and take other actions without discretion. One of the prescribed actions that is required of officers is that they must make an arrest if the domestic violence occurred in the presence of a child under the age of 18. If the child is a witness to the domestic violence, the parents are charged with either child abuse or child neglect depending on the situation. While this appears to be a good idea on paper, it can lead to long-term issues that may not be appropriate in some situations.

Sometimes, isolated incidents of domestic violence occur in situations where it will never happen again. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the concept of creating a law requiring the parents be charged for an argument in the presence of a child is wrought with problems. Usually, police and prosecutors use good judgment in cases. However, sometimes it appears that only poor judgment is present. In many cases, criminal charges of child neglect are placed on parents who do not deserve to be charged. When a victim of domestic violence is charged with child neglect, it only creates a situation where that victim may not report additional incidents of domestic violence for fear of losing their child. The court tends to recognize that the intent of the law is to protect the children in homes where violence and fighting is the norm rather than the exception. Still, cases where the incident was isolated manage to get through the cracks. When that happens, it is usually family court that notices it.

Family court handles most of the domestic violence actions, but they have concurrent jurisdiction if a criminal offense occurred during the incident. In some cases, the criminal case is charged, but later dismissed because it was not supported by facts in the court. A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said the problem is that Family Court may have another case pending that the criminal charge affects. In one case, which occurred in Suffolk County, New York on March 26, 2010, a father requested an appeal to overturn an action of family court.

Published on: April 6, 2012

Domestic Violence Cases are Difficult for Everyone Involved

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic Violence situations are difficult for everyone who is involved in handling them. Family dynamics can be extremely volatile. When domestic violence occurs, there are many people involved. Family Violence Laws encompass past or current spouses; children or step-children, parents and children, foster parents and foster children, siblings, and anyone who has ever lived or is living in the same residence. This is a broad definition of the relationships that are included in the definition of the domestic violence statutes. Domestic violence laws are created not just to deal with crimes that have already occurred; they are expected to intervene to prevent future assaults from happening. However, whenever a law is created that is expected to prevent future offenses before they have occurred, abuses to that law often follow. Many people are arrested in domestic violence situations who did not need to be arrested. Many are arrested who do need to be arrested, but still deserve a fair hearing in a court of law.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that often police officers are called upon to enter a home and restrain one or more of the parties involved in the altercation. When this happens, it can be a dangerous situation for the police officers. In April of 2006, a New York City police officer responded to a domestic violence call in Albany County. During the course of that call, the officer had to struggle with and restrain a male subject. The officer in question and his partner ended up against a table which collapsed under the weight of the three people. The subject had pushed one of the officers onto the table before the officer in question was able to hand cuff him. The officer sustained a debilitating injury to his right shoulder. In July of 2007, he applied to the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System to obtain accidental injury retirement benefits. The Hearing officer determined that this officer was not able to obtain these benefits because the injury could not be considered an accidental injury because it occurred in the normal course of performing his ordinary employment duties.

The officer argued that the collapse of the table was not an expected ordinary course of his employment duties. The state did not agree and refused his petition. The state maintains that responding to domestic violence calls and restraining unruly participants is a normal course of a police officer’s duties. If that officer in catastrophically injured in the course of those duties, the state does not feel that they should be responsible. A Westchester County Criminal Lawyer said the Officer appealed this decision. The State Court of Appeals upheld the verdict.

Published on: April 4, 2012

Court Rules Divorce Case Claiming Domestic Violence

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties herein were married in a religious ceremony on 1 June 2008, in Aventura, Dade County, Florida. There is one (1) child of this marriage who was born in August 2009.

The husband commenced the instant action for divorce in Kings County, New York and for custody of the minor child on or about 14 June 2011. At the time the action for divorce was commenced, the parties were living apart for several months.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the wife instituted an action for divorce in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida and filed and received an ex-parte injunction on 18 March 2011 enjoining either party from removing the child from the State of Florida and allowing supervised visits with the child. The wife predicated her original petition on the grounds of domestic violence and the husband’s allegedly ordering the wife to take the child and reside with the maternal grandparents in Boca Raton, Florida. Her petition in Florida has since been amended on 5 July 2011 to include claims for both spousal and child support and alleging assault, battery and cyber stalking by electronic communication in Florida.

Published on: April 4, 2012

Court Discusses Violation of Order of Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On 22 February 1997, the defendant, after a parental visit, brought his children directly to his then wife (now former wife) in contravention to a court order of protection (hereinafter COOP). Thereafter, a verbal and physical confrontation occurred between the defendant and his wife. The COOP provided that the defendant was to return his children to the local police station.

The defendant was indicted and tried for crimes involved in this incident and another.

On 24 March 1999 after a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of assault in the second degree, two counts of assault in the third degree, and two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree.

Published on: April 3, 2012

Does the State’s failure to increase the compensation rates for assigned counsel violates the constitutional and statutory right to meaningful and effective representation

by Stephen Bilkis

A Lawyers’ Association filed for a rate increase to the State for their in and out of court work. The issue is whether the State’s failure to increase the compensation rates for assigned counsel violates the constitutional and statutory right to meaningful and effective representation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that it does and results in obstructing the judiciary’s ability to function, and declares the law that set those rates are unconstitutional as applied. The court also directed the payment of $90 an hour without distinction between in- and out-of-court work, and without ceilings on total per case compensation, until the governing body acts to address the issue.

Based from the evidence, the grim reality that children and indigent adults in the State Family Court, Criminal Court, and Criminal Term of Supreme Court are at unreasonable risk of being subjected to a process that is neither swift nor deliberate, and fails to confirm the confidence and reliability in the system of justice. It is a direct result of the law-making body’s failure to provide adequate compensation to the assigned counsel. The right of a criminal accused party or Family Court complainant to interpose an attorney between himself and the State with its considerable power and resources is a cherished principle, zealously protected by the State courts. The State continues to ignore its constitutional obligation to the poor by failing to increase the assigned counsel rates that result, in many cases, in denial of counsel, delay in the appointment of counsel, and less than meaningful and effective legal representation. Accordingly, the court declares portions of section of the County Law, section of the Family Court Act and section of the Judiciary Law to be unconstitutional as applied. These statutes were enacted without a mechanism for automatic periodic increases, therefore requiring recurrent visitation by the law-making body. The initial rate set in 1965 of $15 an hour for in-court work and $10 an hour for out-of-court work has been increased twice to $25 and $15 in 1978, and $40 and $25 in 1985. The last increase was 17 years ago.

Published on: March 11, 2012

Defendant Charged with Robbery Claims They Did not have a Weapon

by Stephen Bilkis

Vincent Knowles was charged with one count of robbery in the first degree. He admitted in the hearing before the court that he did steal money, a wallet, jewelry and subway tokens from a Henry Laylock. He also testified that he placed his hand in his pocket, which looked like he had a gun so Mr. Laylock will give him his valuables. The fact was he was unarmed. He pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said if a person displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm when he forcibly steals a property, he is guilty of robbery in the second degree according to the law.

The Trial Court had accepted Mr. Knowles plea, and the case was given to the Supreme Court Appellate Division for review. The Court of Appeals in their review said they need to be one to check if the letter of the law was correctly interpreted in this case. The law states a person who “displays what appears to be” a firearm during a robbery is guilty of robbery in the second degree. The focus they said is to be on the word appears instead of display. In this case, Mr. Knowles did not display anything as his hand was in his pocket during the robbery. In his testimony, he admitted he pretended it was a gun.

Before any revision to the Penal Law, the only law which pertained to firearms was with the robbery in the first degree, according to a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer. This is when a person is armed with a dangerous weapon when committing a robbery. It was not defined by the unrevised law, but the court had always ruled to show the weapon needs to be working and loaded for it to be deemed dangerous. If the gun is inoperable and not loaded, it fell on the robbery in the third degree. So even in the previous statute, this was not a robbery in the first degree.