New York City

Published on: January 14, 2013

Ambulance Workers Attacked While Performing Their Job

by Stephen Bilkis

Many people do not appreciate the unpredictability that comes with the job for an emergency medical technician. Often, they do not have any idea of the volatility of the situation that they have been dispatched to. In most cities, if the call is for a victim of a fight, the EMTs are directed to wait until police officers have certified that the scene is safe for them to enter before they go in. In some situations, they are sent into a volatile situation without advance notice.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that on Christmas Eve morning of 2006 at about two thirty, one EMT crew discovered that no call can be considered safe, even as you are leaving it. The man and woman team had responded to a call of a woman with an injured hand and possibly another injured person at the scene at 190 Butler Street in Brooklyn, New York. It appears from the transcript of the call that the technicians were notified that the injuries were the result of a fight, but police were not dispatched to the call until the female EMT placed the radio call for emergency assistance.

The team had arrived at the apartment building and noticed that there was a large group of people in front of the building. Everyone seemed to be in a festive mood and greetings were exchanged. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the team was taken to an apartment in the back where they treated the female with the injured hand and recommended that she go to a hospital for x-rays. She told the team that she had been in a verbal argument with a man and had punched the wall and injured her hand. She stated that she would go to the hospital on her own and the team walked back to their marked ambulance.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Court Conducts Risk Assessment for Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was arrested for acting in concert with another in allegedly committing the crimes of Kidnapping in the First Degree (Penal Law § 135.25 [1]), Rape in the First Degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]), Sodomy in the First Degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [1]), and Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree (Penal Law § 135.10), against the victim on May 3, 2000, in the vicinity of East 233rd Street and White Plains Road in Bronx County. Defendant and co-defendants were subsequently indicted for all of the above charges. In the felony complaint, it was alleged that the Defendants detained the victim in a car and refused to let her leave when she requested to do so. Further, when she attempted to get out, she was pulled back inside and her mouth covered when she tried to scream for help. The defendants then held the victim down while Defendant inserted his penis into her vagina and Scott inserted his penis into her mouth, both without her consent. At the time of his arrest, when told that he was being charged with rape, Defendant responded, “I kind of had that feeling.” He was subsequently identified by both the victim and an eyewitness in separate corporeal lineups.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, in the course of the Grand Jury presentation, it was established that the victim was with a friend. The friend knew Defendant and talked to him while the victim was standing close by. The victim and friend got into the back seat of the vehicle. When the friend got out purchasing some cigarettes or marijuana, Defendant drove off with the victim. The victim called to the friend for help. However, the defendant pulled her back into the car. Defendant proceeded to drive to a parking lot. He then got into the back seat, grabbed the victim’s thigh and demanded that she place his penis into her mouth. Thereafter, Defendant removed the victim’s pants, held her hands down, and engaged in sexual intercourse (rape) with her against her will. The defendant then inserted his pturbated into her mouth while Defendant held her hands down as she was repeatedly shouting, “No.” Scott then struck the victim in the mouth. Afterwards, the victim was driven to within one block of her home and forcibly thrown out of the car.

DNA tests performed on the victim and Defendant revealed that his semen and that of another male were found on a vaginal swab of the victim as well as on her panties.

Published on: August 1, 2012

Defense Moves to Supress Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A detective led a police team that was investigating the deaths of a two man. The bodies of the two victims were discovered in the bathroom of the other man’s apartment. Both men had been bound with duct tape and shot through the head. A New Criminal Lawyer said when the detective and his colleague went to the apartment, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and observed marijuana residue. The police later discovered that the other man had been a low-level drug dealer.

A witness, who claimed to have been a close friend of the other victim undergone interview with the detective, during their discussions, the witness stated that he knew the victim and they had been friends for fifteen years. The witness also stated that the victim had been a marijuana dealer with regular clientele. He also revealed that he had been present in the victim’s apartment when the victim sold between a half-pound and a pound of marijuana to another man. The witness also asserts that the victim had also been well acquainted with his client, whom he sold the pound of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the witness further states that the victim told him about a shipment of 30 to 50 pounds of marijuana and had some out-of-town buyers for it. The victim was nervous about so large a shipment and his client was present when the victim mentioned the prospective sale to the witness.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police utilized the information from the witness to obtain a photograph of the victim’s client. They put the photograph into a computer-generated photo array which they showed the witness. The witness identified the person pictured in the photograph as the client who purchased the marijuana from the victim. The police also obtained a number of addresses of locations that were linked to the client. A New York Drug Possessionhttp://http://www.newyorkcriminallawyer24-7.com/lawyer-attorney-1732528.html Lawyer said another detective informed the head detective that the victim’s client had a reputation for robbing drug dealers. At about 7:00 pm that same day, the detectives visited one of the apartments in the hope of finding the victim’s client.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction in Drug Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The grand jury of the special narcotics courts voted a verdict against the four men charging them with four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and two counts of conspiracy in the fourth degree. However, the four men filed discovery motions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the state of New York then supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination. After examining the minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions.

First, the charges does not contain any drug crime related charge, does the grand jury of the special narcotics courts have subject matter jurisdiction? Second, the special narcotics grand jury has subject matter jurisdiction, does it also have geographic jurisdiction?

On the proceeding, the state of New York alleges that a confidential informant contacted a man to offer an opportunity to rob drug dealers with a valuable supply of narcotics and/or cash. The man allegedly accepted the informant’s offer and engaged the three other men to be part of the robbery gang. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case detectives instructed the informant to tell the four men that the robbery location was in Bronx. Apparently, it is also alleged that the informant and the four men loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to that Bronx location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Police Uncover Drugs on Traffic Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

A police officer testified that he is a six-year member of the New York City Police Department and had worked as an anti-crime officer for approximately the past 3 ½ years. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he testified that he was on anti-drug crime duty on June 8, 2007 at 6:10 P.M. in the vicinity of West 145th Street. The police officer was seated in the rear passenger seat of an unmarked car traveling eastbound on West 145th Street driven by his partner. A police sergeant was traveling in the front passenger seat of the vehicle.

From approximately two or three car lengths ahead, the police officer stated that he observed a Mercedes-Benz, also traveling eastbound on West 145th Street, drive erratically by weaving in and out of lanes and attempt to make a U-turn. The officers responded by accelerating to catch up to the vehicle and putting on signals, lights, and sirens to indicate to the car’s driver that he should pull over. While the Mercedes-Benz was slowing down, but before it came to a complete stop, the police officer testified that he observed a tennis ball thrown from the right side of the car. The police officer stated that on prior occasions in the scope of his law enforcement duties he has seen tennis balls used as containers for narcotics. At an unspecified later point in time, the tennis ball was recovered and shown to the police officer who observed that the ball contained a slit that would allow narcotics to be placed inside of it. While the police officer stated that he was told by the other police officer that the tennis ball contained contraband, the parties entered into a stipulation that no contraband was ever recovered from inside the tennis ball.

After stopping the vehicle, the other police officer approached the driver and asked him for his license, registration and proof of insurance. The police officer stated that he observed his fellow officer ask the driver to get out of the vehicle and pat him down. The driver was then taken to the rear of the Mercedes-Benz where the police officer was standing with the police sergeant. The other police officer took the individual seated in the rear driver side out of the vehicle, patted him down and handcuffed him.

Published on: July 12, 2012

Plaintiff Alleges Racketeering Crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

Arlene Lichtenstein for herself and as the Administratrix of the Estate of Irwin Lichtenstein, deceased, is the plaintiffs in the case. The defendants in the case are Alfred Polizzotto, Florence Polizzotto, Sol Cohen, Al Gallo, and Rosemary whose last name is not known. John Doe 1, 2, and 3 are also defendants in the matter. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. Judge Peter Tom is overseeing the case.

The defendants have moved to have the amended complaint against them dismissed. They state that the complaint does not state a cause action as determined by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The plaintiff is accusing the defendant Alfred Polizzotto of converting the assets of the plaintiff and the assets of the Estate of Irwin Lichtenstein for his own personal benefit and use. The plaintiff states he was acting in concert with the other defendants in the matter.

Published on: July 7, 2012

Defendant Attacked While Swimming in the Ocean in Queens

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the Appellate Division in the Second Department. The appellant of the case is the People of the State of New York. The People are represented by Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Kew Gardens with Nicoletta J. Caferri, Steven J. Chananie, and Barbara D. Underwood for counsel. The respondent of the case is Pedro Alvarez. The defendant is represented by the law offices of Michael Vincent Ricci located in Whitestone. The counsel for the defendant is Robert A. Katz. The case is being heard in front of Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Miller, and Pizzuto, JJ.

The People of the State of New York are appealing an order that was made by the Supreme Court of Queens County. The order is from the 8th of September, 1992 and granted the defendant the motion to have the indictment made against him dismissed.

Case Background

Published on: June 30, 2012

Court Looks at Corroborating Evidence in Rape Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

In August 1971, a 14-year old girl lived in an apartment building. Their neighbor asked the girl to bring some music records from his apartment to his daughter-in law’s apartment. It was three o’clock on a summer afternoon and the 14 year old girl knew the man because he had been their neighbor for a long time.

The girl went inside the apartment of their neighbor. As soon as she entered, the neighbor grabbed the girl and he threw her down to the couch. The man held down the girl as he raped her.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said after the rape, the neighbor let the girl go. As she was standing up to leave, the man grabbed her by her arm forcefully and told her not to tell anyone what happened.

Published on: May 23, 2012

Defendant Contends No Probable Cause for Search of Glove Box

by Stephen Bilkis

A man is charged with criminal possession of a weapon; criminal possession of stolen property and one count of bribery. He moves to suppress physical evidence seized at the time of his arrest and any custodial statements attributed to him.

On the morning of January 23, 1982, a police officer received a phone call at the precinct from an unidentified male who reported that automatic weapons could be found in the trunk of a maroon Oldsmobile parked near a bar.

Two officers responded and staked out the vehicle. At approximately 2:35 a.m. they observed the accused enter the car and followed him to the parking lot of a bar in a nearby town. When the accused exited the vehicle, the officers approached him, identified themselves and requested his driver’s license and registration.

Published on: May 8, 2012

Defendant Brings Case for Sentencing Error

by Stephen Bilkis

On 3 May 1995, defendant was convicted of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, one count of Assault in the Second Degree, one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree, and two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree.

On 15 May 1995, defendant was sentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of ten to twenty years for each Robbery in the First Degree conviction, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of seven and one-half to fifteen years on five of the six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three and one-half to seven years on the Assault in the Second Degree conviction, one year determinate on the Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree conviction, and one year determinate for both Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree counts.

The sentencing Court ran the two Robbery in the First Degree sentences, and two of the Robbery in the Second Degree sentences consecutive to one another, for a total indeterminate sentence of thirty-five (35) to seventy (70) years.