Articles Posted in Queens

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that on 10 September 1992 evening, two people arrived at the corner of East 213th Street and Bronxwood Avenue in a BMW. Already present were Defendant and seven (7) other people, two of which were brothers. All of these individuals were known to each other, had some type of criminal background. Four (4) of them all sold drugs in the vicinity, with one working for Defendant.

Meanwhile, two other brothers, one went into a nearby restaurant while the other did the same or used a nearby telephone.

Continue reading

Defendant is a New York City police officer who was arrested in a “sting operation” wherein he was made to believe that he was being hired by a drug dealer for the purpose of protecting transported drug money (the fruit of a drug crime).

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the Supreme Court, Queens County convicted him of bribery receiving by a public servant in the third degree, receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree, official misconduct, and computer trespass; a number of criminal law violations.

Defendant appeals the court’s decision.

There is a good deal of specific legality, which is involved in cases of gambling or racketeering. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the fact that a person is engaged in a criminal enterprise must be proven. In order for a case to be considered a criminal enterprise, the person must have committed three or more acts that constitute separate and distinct crimes that relate to the same enterprise. The crimes must be separate and able to be tried an convicted on their own without being a drawn out version of just one crime. A crime is not a criminal enterprise if it just takes a long time to commit the one crime. In gambling or numbers operations, it can sometimes be difficult to show that the gambling operation is actually a criminal enterprise.

In one case from 1997, the court arrested several subjects and charged them with conspiracy and operating a criminal enterprise in Queens County. The police alleged that the gambling operation was started around August 15, 1996 and continued until the arrests of the subjects on November 7, 1997. The indictment charged that the defendants in the case were all members of a notorious gambling organized crime ring that was run by the Conigliaro family. The police brought forth evidence that demonstrated that the enterprise was organized in Queens, Kings, and Richmond Counties in the state of New York. It showed that there was a bookmaker, who was in control of ensuring that the operation ran smoothly. There was a controller, who handled the daily business of the enterprise and all of the accounting details. There were several clerks who took the betting information by phone and had runners meet with the bettors each week to settle the accounts.

The defense maintained that the organization could not be convicted for operating a criminal enterprise because their crimes were gambling only. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the pattern of illegal gambling activity was documented from November 1988 to July of 1991. The legislators maintained that illegal enterprises were specifically considered in the written statute to include “syndicated gambling.” The question of law was whether these actions constituted on criminal purpose and objective or not. If it is one purpose and objective, then the case cannot be a criminal enterprise because there has to be three distinct acts.

Continue reading

Police officers who work drug related crimes require specialized training to ensure that they conduct themselves appropriately while they are performing their duties. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the nature of drug crimes is that it changes frequently. The fluidity of the laws surrounding the actions of the police and prosecutors means that occasionally, the fall behind the law in matters that relate to the arrests and prosecutions of offenders. That means that a person who has obtained a good attorney is more capable in most cases of interpreting recent case law as well as statutory law. One case that helped to define the criteria of modern drug law occurred in January of 1981.

On January 31, 1981, two detectives were in an unmarked undercover vehicle in an area where drug problems had been reported. They were using binoculars to survey the area. They observed a car at 8:15 at night pull up and park on the curb about 100 feet away from them. They watched with their binoculars for several minutes while suspected customers came up to the car and transactions took place. Specifically, what the officers observed was that another car would pull up, and a person would approach the driver of the parked vehicle. A conversation would ensue. Money would be handed to the driver, or the passenger, who was later identified as the defendant’s wife. A small tinfoil ball would be handed to the person out of the car window. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the officers observed the purchaser hold the tinfoil ball to his nose and smell it before leaving. After watching two of these transactions, the officers approached the vehicle and notified the marked patrol backup unit to respond to the location.

The officers handcuffed the driver and his male companion and searched them. They located an envelope of marijuana on the driver’s person. The detectives identified themselves and placed the two male subjects in the back of the detective car handcuffed while they interviewed the additional suspects. When the marked unit arrived and the detective started to transfer the prisoners, they located a clear plastic baggie of angel dust in the driver’s coat pocket. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said one the prisoners were properly searched and placed into the marked unit, the officers checked their back seat and discovered that there were four tinfoil balls of angel dust on the seat of the vehicle. At the precinct, the officers recovered $237 cash from the driver and his wife.

Continue reading

On 10 December 1992, near the intersection of Elizabeth and Broome streets in New York County, a robbery occurred during which an individual grabbed a necklace after a brief struggle. Thereafter, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said at the fifth police precinct the victim identified defendant from photographs as the perpetrator.

On 20 January 1993, defendant was arrested for the robbery when he kept his regularly scheduled appointment with his parole officer. At that time, defendant was also carrying seven glassines of heroin, which he allegedly admitted to his parole officer that he was intending to sell.

On 21 January 1993, defendant was arraigned in Criminal Court on a felony complaint charging the crimes of Robbery in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree.

Continue reading

On 13 November 1966, defendant shot his divorced wife with a shotgun in the presence of their two daughters in Baldwin, Long Island. A New York Criminal Lawyer said a gun crime has occurred. Immediately thereafter he drove to the Bronx and told a priest what he had done. Thereafter, the priest went with defendant to Nassau County, where he voluntarily entered the police station and gave himself up.

Defendant, after being warned of his Miranda rights, made an oral waiver of such rights and proceeded to make certain statements to the police in response to their questions. During the questioning he admitted that he had shot his wife but added that his gun had accidentally discharged. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said after completing their interrogation, the police officers asked if he would like to sign a statement incorporating his oral statements. Defendant refused to do so until he gets to see a lawyer. He was then asked if he wanted an attorney, and he said, “Yes”.

In the afternoon of that same day, a doctor presented himself to defendant. He said he was there on behalf of the District Attorney and told defendant he did not have to talk to him if he did not want to. The doctor then conducted an examination of defendant which lasted for about an hour and a half.

Continue reading

Two men entered a gas station in Long Island on February 18, 1976. With a gun, one of them forced the 16-year old gas attendant to give him all the cash in the till. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the man ordered the boy to kneel down and to face away from them. He then shot the boy who died later.

At the start of the police investigation into the robbery with homicide, the police had no idea as to the identity of the robbers. They received a tip from a woman who was in the same house as the two men. She remembers that on the same night of the murder of the 16 year old boy at the gas station, the two men suddenly left the house because they had a job to do. They came back highly excited and told the woman that they had to shoot someone. This tip was put in the records of the investigation.

One month after the shooting of the 16-year old, the police chased a suspect in a car theft incident. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said two men were involved in the car theft but only one suspect was caught. The police saw the suspect they were chasing: he slowed down the car and threw something out. A week after the car chase, a little girl turned in a loaded gun she found in the place where the chase took place. The police checked the gun and it turned out that it was the same gun that was used to kill the 16-year old gas attendant at the gas station in Long Island.

Two counties of New York entered into a contract with a Catholic charitable group to provide residential domestic services. In October 1988, a woman contacted the charity asking their help to escape the domestic violence perpetrated against her by her husband.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the woman was afraid of her husband and she needed a safe place to go. All the residential facilities operated by the charitable organization were full. The employee of the charitable group suggested that she go to a shelter in the next county but the woman did not want to go so far away.

The employee of the charitable organization then contacted social services and asked for their approval to place the battered woman in a motel. The employee drove over to the house of the woman and picked her up and took her to the motel. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she battered woman was bruised and intoxicated. The employee of the charitable organization volunteered to drive the woman to a hospital but she refused.

On 21 May 2002, plaintiff commenced the action. The parties were married on 24 January 1992, in Brooklyn, New York. The husband is 37 years of age and the wife is 46 years of age. The parties have two (2) children, a son born on 31 March 1988, and a daughter born on 27 September 1995. The husband is a business and property owner. The wife is a homemaker and factory worker.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the parties were born in the Country of Ecuador and knew each other in Ecuador prior to coming to the United States. The wife was previously married to the husband’s cousin who subsequently died. It is undisputed that the husband also knew the wife’s two (2) brothers who were the subject of testimony in the instant matter.

When the wife immigrated to the United States in 1987, she did so without permission to permanently reside in the United States and was in the company of her now deceased husband. It appears that the husband and wife herein and the wife’s husband at that time, moved into a two-bedroom apartment which was also occupied by other individuals from Ecuador.

Continue reading