Sex Crimes

Published on: July 10, 2012

Attorney Disbared in Wire Fraud Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with a matter concerning the attorney and counselor at law, Cheddi B. Goberdhan. The petitioner in the matter is the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts. Cheddi B. Goberdhan is the respondent. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division; Second Judicial Department. A. Gail Prudenti, P.J. , William F. Mastro, Peter B. Skelos, Reinaldo E. Rivera, and Leonard B. Austin, JJ are the judges hearing the case.

Case Background

The Grievance Committee from the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts has motioned for the name of the respondent to be taken off the roll of attorneys and counselors at law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the reason for this motion is that the respondent was convicted of a felony, which is in violation of Judiciary Law Section 904.

Published on: July 10, 2012

Court Discusses RICO Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Robert Ritchie et al are the respondents in the matter. The appellant in this case is Carvel Corporation. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Second Department.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the appellant is represented by Jeffery A. Klatzkow from Yonkers. The respondents are represented by Herzfield & Rubin, P.C. from New York City. David B. Hamm, Herbert Rubin, Linda M. Brown, and Peter Kurshan are acting as counsel for the respondents.

The case is being heard in front of Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Harwood, and Rosenblatt, JJ.

Published on: July 9, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant has a history of being arrested under different names.

On 12 August 1972, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant was arrested for possession of burglar’s tools while on a fire escape. He gave a name, name-one, with a date of birth of 30 December 1946 and an address of 180 Saratoga Avenue in Kings County.

Published on: July 9, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1992, the appellant was charged and convicted with sex crimes namely rape and sexual abuse. In 1994, he was paroled and was found to have violated the parole. Subsequently, he was convicted for the criminal sale of a controlled substance and applied for parole. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said while on parole, he was convicted of attempted rape for forcing himself upon the 68-year old mother of his then-girlfriend. He was sentenced to 8 years of incarceration. While incarcerated, he was further convicted of attempted rape in the first degree based on a rape he committed in July 1996.

A nonjury trial was formed to hear the case of the appellant. After which, it found that the appellant was a “detained sex offender” under article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, also known as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act. The Supreme Court then conducted a dispositional hearing, after which it determined that the appellant was a dangerous [84 A.D.3d 1100] sexual offender requiring civil confinement and ordered such confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.07[f]).

A psychiatrist, the State’s expert, testified that the appellant suffers from, among other things, paraphilia NOS (not otherwise specified) and antisocial personality disorder. He detailed the appellant’s specific pattern of deviant sexual arousal [84 A.D.3d 1101] and his inability to control his impulses. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he testified that the appellant, because of his condition and the resulting symptoms, was predisposed to committing sexual offenses and had serious difficulty controlling such behavior.

Published on: July 9, 2012

Court Decides if Physical Resistance Necessary for Rape Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 27 August 1979 at about 6:00 P.M., the complainant, a forty-nine year old woman, who was five feet tall and who weighed 130 pounds, entered the lobby of her apartment building. She was returning home from work. When an elevator arrived, the complainant entered and pressed the button for the tenth floor where her apartment was located. A young male entered the elevator with her and pressed the button for another floor. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the next thing the complainant noticed was the elevator stopping. Upon looking up to see if it was her floor, she saw the defendant standing by the elevator buttons, manipulating them. She also saw that the elevator was stopped between floors, with the door to the elevator shaft being open. However, the alarm bell of the elevator did not go off. Allegedly, the young male, a fifteen year old, who was approximately five feet seven inches tall and weighed in excess of two hundred pounds, turned around and told her to take her clothes off, and undress. When the complainant did not respond, the defendant repeated this demand. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the complainant then complied and was subjected to acts of sexual intercourse and sodomy during the next ten to fifteen minutes. Following this, the defendant told the complainant to get dressed, and he started the elevator back up, eventually getting out at the twenty-second floor. The complainant was then able to get the elevator back down to her floor, where she got out, went into her apartment, and called the development’s security police force. They then contacted the New York City Police Department. The defendant was identified by the complainant later that evening at the security police offices and was arrested.

Thereafter, the defendant was indicted on charges of Rape in the First Degree and Sodomy in the First Degree.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Defendant Contends Duress and Misrepresentation by Court

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action of unjust conviction against the state, claimant entered a plea of guilty to the reduced charge of attempted rape in the first degree in satisfaction of indictment, charging him with rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said three weeks after it was entered, claimant moved to vacate his plea on the ground that it “was involuntary and was taken only because of the enormous pressure put upon him by former legal aid counsel and his supervisor from the legal aid society.” The supporting affidavit further alleges that, from the outset, claimant had told his Legal Aid attorney, “I did not want to hear from him about taken a plea that I believed my innocence could and would be proven in court.” Claimant describes the performance of his attorneys as coercive and also ineffective, and asserts that counsel should have withdrawn from claimant’s defense. Significantly, the affidavit makes no mention of any coercion on the part of the court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, respondent Britt’s portrayal of events in general, and particularly those surrounding the entry of his guilty plea, is distorted and self-serving. An examination of the circumstances culminating in the motion to vacate his plea demonstrates that claimant’s allegations of coercion, ineffective representation and unfair surprise are contradicted by the record.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Model Survives Brutal Attack

by Stephen Bilkis

A female model dated an acquaintance. They had dinner and after-dinner conversation. The male acquaintance then started making advances of a sexual nature and the female model refused.

The male acquaintance got angry at being refused. He pulled out a five inch knife and threatened to cut the female model’s face. The female model became fearful not only for her life but also for her future as her face is something of a business asset from which she derived her living.

The male acquaintance raped and sodomized her for two hours. He cut up her clothes and also cut her up in her arms and legs during that time. The female model was hospitalized. She was traumatized and suffered anguish and emotional distress. She underwent therapy for her to deal with the fears, the nightmares and the depression which resulted from the rape.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Court Assesses SORA Statute in Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

The defendant appeared before the Court for a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. The defendant has a criminal history which dates back to the 1950’s and includes a number of crimes committed in Virginia, viz: Rape in Virginia, in 1955; Felony Cutting with Intent to Maim in Virginia, in 1957; Rape in 1962; and Arson in the Second Degree in New York, in 1985.

First, A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant moved to have the Court declare SORA unconstitutional as applied and use the Static 99 rather than the SORA Risk Assessment Instrument (the “RAI”) to determine his risk for re-offense. He argues that the SORA Risk Assessment Instrument does not measure the risk of re-offense, as it purports to do, but reflects a moral judgment about how blameworthy sexually offending behavior is. He describes the instrument and risk level determinations under SORA as punitive rather than regulatory. For this reason, he alleges, the statute is unconstitutional.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Defendant Contends 6th Amendment Rights Were Violated During Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal case. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme court of the State of New York. The respondent in the case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant of the case is Jean Cantave. The People of the State of New York are represented by John M. Castellano, Roni C. Piplani, and Sharon Y. Brodt from the District Attorneys office in Kew Gardens New York. The appellant is represented by the law offices of Lynn W.L. Fahey of New York, New York with De Nice Powell for counsel.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing an order that was made by the Queens County Supreme Court. The order was issued on the 28th of June, 2008 and convicted the defendant of first degree rape and first degree sexual abuse.

Case Background

Published on: July 8, 2012

Defendant Brings Motion to Bring In Expert Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York versus the defendant Quentin Abney. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County.

Case Background

The defendant has been convicted by a jury for the crime of holding a six inch knife to the throat of a girl who was thirteen years old at the time and ripping a chain from around her neck. A the only witness in the crime was the victim. The incident only lasted a few seconds. There was no evidence submitted in the case aside from the victim’s identification of the defendant.