Articles Posted in Queens

The appellant in the case is Vicki Trees. She is a juvenile and is represented by her parents, Jerry L. and Jewell Trees. The appellee in the case is the K-Mart Corporation located in the town of Lake Park in Florida. Additional appellees in the case are Frank Cardinal, Frank Helm, and Paul Friedman.

Appeal

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said Vicki Trees was a plaintiff in a false arrest and malicious prosecution suit. She is appealing the verdict of the case, stating that the original trial court admitted evidence improperly that showed her participation in a collateral crime.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

Domestic violence laws have changed to become more responsive to the needs of battered victims even when their behavior seems to be erratic. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that victims of domestic violence do not respond in predictable ways, they do have certain patterns of behavior that are common. In 2005, the Federal Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005) was signed into law. This law prevents victims of domestic violence from eviction from their homes following incidents of domestic violence. Prior to this law, it was common for property owners to evict domestic violence victims from their homes following a violent episode. It was tantamount to victimizing the battered twice.

VAWA 2005 (42 USC § 1437f[c][9][B]) states that “An incident or incidents of actual or threatened domestic violence. . .shall not be good cause for terminating the assistance, tenancy, or occupancy rights of the victim of such violence.” Section C(i) provides that “criminal activity directly relating to domestic violence. . .shall not be cause for termination. . .if the tenant. . .is the victim. . .of that domestic violence. . .” In essence, the property owner can evict the primary aggressor. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the property owner may not evict the victim of domestic violence.

This law is important since many times, the victim is evicted because keeping them on the property exposes the property owner to complaints from other residents. The home is disruptive to neighbors who complain to the property owner or manager. The easy way out is to evict everyone in that home and rent to a family who does not cause a disturbance. Clearly, this is not fair to the victim. In fact, offenders will often threaten their victims to submit quietly so that the neighbors do not complain and they suffer eviction.

Continue reading

In domestic violence cases, the court is often called upon to review actions that people have taken in contradiction to the law. In New York, the wiretapping laws are clear. If one of the two people involved in the conversation on a telephone line is aware of the taping, then the tape is legal and may be presented in a court of law. If however, the tape is made by a third person with no input into the call and without the knowledge or permission of anyone involved in the conversation, then the tape is not admissible in court and is considered an illegal wiretap. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the laws that control these wiretaps explicitly detail that anyone who wants to tape a conversation must obtain an order authorizing the wiretap from a Supreme Court judge.

In many domestic violence cases, one or both of the parties involved may attempt to gain information about the other to use in court. If the information is obtained without the proper judicial order, it must be reviewed to determine if one of the parties involved in the conversation gave permission for the tape. If it is proven that one of the parties in the tape gave permission for it to be made, then the court has other procedures that it must follow. A certified court recorded will make an official transcript of the conversation on the tape. In most cases, the defendant’s attorney will want to depose the people or person on the tape in order to establish the veracity. In some cases, this can become problematic for the court. This is the case if the person who gave permission for the tape is located more than 100 miles from the point of the trial. In the present case, a wife had in her possession in matrimonial issue, a tape that she contends will prove that her husband is lying. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the proposed that the conversation on the tape, that took place between he and his sister detailed his deceptive practices and is therefore critical to the defense of this woman and the custody issue at stake.

The judge ruled that the tape would have to be authenticated by official contact with the sister who gave permission for the tape to be made. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said then the sister officially notifies the court that she did give permission for her brother’s wife to tape her conversation with her brother, then the court will authorize a transcript of the tape. The court further states that upon acceptance of the tape as legitimate, the sister will be made convenient to the defense for a deposition.

Continue reading

In August 2005, New Jersey, respondent engaged in a physical altercation with his wife that took place in March of that year. Respondent pleaded guilty to the crime of simple assault, for which he was sentenced to one year of probation. As a result of that conviction, respondent (who is also a member of the New Jersey bar) was censured by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that on December 2007, respondent had another instance in which he struck his wife while they were on vacation in the Caribbean.

In 2008, Virginia, respondent was involved in a domestic dispute with his wife in March of that year. The altercation culminated in respondent striking and restraining his wife, causing physical injuries to her that required medical attention. Respondent was arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to the felony of unlawful wounding, in violation of the Virginia Code, for which he was sentenced to three years of incarceration with all but 12 months suspended, subject to certain conditions. Upon release from prison in February 2009, respondent was placed on probation until February 2011. An order of protection was also issued, which directed respondent to stay away from his wife and to make restitution to her in the amount of $2,283.43. The Virginia conviction gave rise to the instant proceeding.

Continue reading

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that the defendant-mother (hereinafter referred to as mother) and plaintiff-father (hereinafter referred to as father) were married in December 1996 and in 2003 were physically separated when the mother left the marital residence alleging abuse against her and the children.

The mother moved for an order of custody and modification of prior orders of custody entered in the Family Court, on consent. There are two (2) children of this marriage ages 14 and 9.

On 27 June 2003 the father filed a petition for custody in Family Court, Kings County.