New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: August 14, 2012

Defendant Claims Ineffective Counsel

by Stephen Bilkis

The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Floyd F. The Criminal Court of the City of New York in Kings County is hearing this case. The defendant has motioned to have his plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the third degree vacated. The plea was taken on the 10th of November, 1994 and he was convicted for the crime on the 12th of January, 1995.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant is requesting that the judgment against him be vacated based upon ineffective counsel and because the plea was entered without him fully understanding what it met. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant argues that when he entered the plea of guilty he was not informed by his attorney of the potential immigration consequences. He states that if he had known about these consequences he would have chosen to not enter the plea and would have gone to trial instead.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Court Discusses Waiver of Right to Appeal

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard before the Supreme Court, Appellant Division, Second Department of the State of New York. The respondent in this matter is the People of the State of New York. Jay Jomar Bradshaw is the appellant of the case.

The defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Kings County Supreme Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the judgment convicted him of rape in the first degree after he pleaded guilty to the crime. The appeal will review the denial of the charges after a hearing for suppression of identification.

Case Background

Published on: August 14, 2012

Court Discusses Plea Bargain

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case involving the People of the State of New York against the defendant George P. Tobler. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Criminal Term in Suffolk County, Part I. The defendant of the case has moved to compel a cooperation agreement with the plaintiff’s. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he states that he will provide information in support of indictments of others in exchange for consent by the District Attorney to a plea of a lesser charge against him and a recommendation that he should not be incarcerated.

Additionally, the defendant seeks a dismissal of the indictment because of the legal insufficiency of the Grand Jury minutes, prosecutorial misconduct, and selective prosecution. Following this relief he moves for a change of venue and discover and inspection.

Case Background

Published on: August 14, 2012

drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter dealing with an application made by Patrick Henry, the District Attorney of Suffolk County. He has entered a petition for a judgment and determination of forfeiture under Article 33, Section 3388 of the Public Health Law of the State of New York. The respondent of the case is Salvatore Castagnaro. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Criminal Term in Suffolk County, Part II.

Case Background

On the 3rd of September, 1980, the defendant – respondent Salvatore Castagnaro entered a plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. A New York DWI Lawyer said his plea satisfied the seven charges that were made against him in an indictment. The defendant was then sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one to three years.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Plaintiff Alleges Assault

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case of the People of the State of New York verses the defendants Smithtown General Hospital, Lorna Salzarullo, David Lipton, Harold Massoff, Lorna Salzarullo, and Mary Chiu, are charged with allowing a prosthetic devices salesman to participate in a meaningful way during a surgical procedure that was being performed at the Smithtown General Hospital without the knowledge or consent of the patient. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Criminal Term, of Suffolk County Part II.

Case Background

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the individual defendants are health care professionals, two are orthopedic surgeons, one is a registered nurse, and the other an anesthesiologist. The alleged incident took place on the third of July, 1975.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Defendant Contends Miranda Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The respondent of this case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant in the case is Martin Tankleff. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. Martin Tankleff is appealing a decision that denied his motion to vacate two judgments from the same court that convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Case Facts

On the 7th of September, 1988, Seymour and Arlene Tankleff were attacked fatally in their home located in Belle Terre, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the police arrived at the scene of the crime, the defendant, who is the son of the victims and was 17 years old at the time, repeatedly told the police that his father’s business partner, Jerard Steuerman committed the murders.

Published on: August 13, 2012

Defendant Appeals a Ruling for Malicious Prosecution

by Stephen Bilkis

Bronx County Rape 7

Alberto Ramos is the appellant and respondent of this particular case. The respondent and appellant of the matter is the City of New York.

Case Background

Published on: August 13, 2012

drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

This proceeding is taking place in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in St. Lawrence County. The case deals for a judgment that is pursuant to Article 78 of CPLR that was originated by a petition made by Tywan Jones and verified on the 13th of November, 2007. The petitioner is an inmate at the Ogdensburg Correctional Facility and is seeking an order from this court to direct that he be credited with approximately 270 days of jail time that he allegedly spent in the Suffolk County and or Willard Drug Treatment Campus against his sentence of three years that was imposed by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Additionally, the petitioner seeks for this court directing his immediate enrollment in the DOCS Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program.

Case Background

A New York DWI Lawyer said on the third of July, 2003, the petitioner was sentenced in the Suffolk County Court as a second felony offender. His sentence was imprisonment of three to six years and was for a conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. DOCS received the petitioner in their custody on the 14th of July, 2003. He was entitled to 67 days of jail time credit at the time. On the 29th of January the petitioner was released into parole supervision after completing the DOCS shock incarceration program.

Published on: August 13, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of the People of the State of New York versus the defendant, Gil Rivera. The case is being heard in the Criminal Court of the City of New York in Bronx County. The defendant has moved to set aside the sentence that has been imposed on him. He basis his argument for this motion on the ground that the sentence was unauthorized, illegally imposed, or otherwise invalid as a matter of the law.

Court Discussion

The instant case at hand deals with the Mental Hygiene Law. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said this law was originally enacted in April of 1966. The purpose of this law was to provide a comprehensive plan that covers the care, treatment, and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts.

Published on: August 13, 2012

Defendant Requests Disclosure of Exculpatory Materials

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is Michael Brown. He has made an omnibus motion requesting several forms of relief. The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The County Court of the City of New York in Suffolk County is hearing the case.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s omnibus motion has requested discovery pursuant to CPL 240.20. The People have answered that they have provided their entire discovery to the defense. The defendant has not submitted a reply to contest the sufficiency of the answer that was provided by the People. For this reason, it seems that the request has been complied with.