New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: July 29, 2012

Court Grants Order to Show Cause

by Stephen Bilkis

The case involves the petitioner, U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance, Inc. The respondents in the matter are Abraham A. Rubashkin, Joseph Rubashkin, Rivka Rubashkin, Rosie Sandman, Gutol Leiter, Hilgar Limited, 452-53rd Street Reality Company, A.A. Rubashkin & Sons Inc. 410 East 17th Street, LLC, 404 Realty Associates, LLC, and John Doe’s numbered one through ten.

The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. Judge Arthur M. Schack is hearing the case.

Case Background

Published on: July 29, 2012

Court Reviews Judiciary Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. The matter at hand deals with the attorney and respondent of the case, Eric Alan Klein. The petitioner in the case is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.

The respondent was admitted to the bar on the 7th of March, 1984. This occurred during a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. The respondent was admitted to the bar under the name of Eric Alan Klein.

Case Background

Published on: July 29, 2012

Court Decides if States have Concurrent Jurisdiction with Federal Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the matter is the Greenview Trading Company. The defendants in the matter are Hershman & Leicher, P.C., Harold M. Hershman, Indu Craft, PLC of New York, Incorporated, and Richard Rottman. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court in the state of New York located in New York County. The acting justice in the case is David B. Saxe.

The question before the court in this case is whether state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts to hear private civil actions regarding damages under the RICO act, or are these actions only within the federal domain.

Case Background

Published on: July 29, 2012

Case Brought for Defrauding Investment Companies

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs and appellants in the matter are B.B.C.F.D., S.A., etc., et al. The defendants and respondents in the case are Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., et al., and Mina Persyko. The case is being heard in the First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the plaintiff in this matter is seeking to appeal a verdict that was made on the 7th of November, 2008. The previous order dismissed some of the claims that were made by the plaintiff and denied the motion from the plaintiff to recall and modify the complaint.

Case Background

Published on: July 29, 2012

Defense Contends Charge of Predatory Sexual Assault Cannot be Upheld

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, there are many different levels of sex crime offenders. Often the difference between the crimes are reduced to one or two words that are found in the different laws. In one case that occurred on May 2, 2011 and on May 14, 2011, the same offender was involved in both cases. On May 2, 2011, he was charged with sodomizing a young woman forcibly and against her will by forcing her to commit oral sex on him and then forced anal sex on her (rape). On May 14, 2011, before he could be arrested on the first offense, he assaulted another woman. During this assault, he forcibly fondled the woman’s breasts and then raped her vaginally.

He was charged with Predatory Sexual Assault in both cases. However, his indictment passed down by the Grand Jury, only charged Predatory Sexual Assault in the case of the victim on May 14, 2011 and did not proceed on the charges of Predatory Sexual Assault in the case of the victim who was assaulted on May 2, 2011. The reason for this action, was that the charge of Predatory Sexual Assault requires that the action must have been taken on at least one prior occasion. In this case, the court determined that the more serious offense of Predatory Sexual Assault would only apply to the second offense with the first offense used to support the charge on the second victim. Predatory Sexual Assault is a more serious violation that is used to get serial sexual offenders off the streets longer than in the case of one time isolated incidents.

The defendant made a motion to the court to dismiss the charges in their entirety. He contends that since both cases were indicted at the same time, and the first offense was not indicted at all, that there is no precedent case to base the Predatory Sexual Assault charges on in the second offense. The prosecution contends that the Grand Jury heard the testimony in its entirety and determined that the indictment was prepared correctly. There is no wording in the legal statute that provides that the precedent case for Predatory Sexual Assault cannot be submitted at the same proceeding as the case that charges Predatory Sexual Assault. The defense does not agree.

Published on: July 29, 2012

Defendant Claims Mental Illness as a Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

Issues that involve mentally ill suspects can be difficult to manage in the criminal justice system. Mentally ill suspects are a special population of offenders that do not fit squarely in the legislative intent in most cases. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when a violent crime involves a person who is clearly mentally ill, the court must balance the rights of the victim’s family to see justice done with the ethical problem of managing an offender who may not be able to comprehend the trial process, his charges, or that what he did was wrong. There have been several laws throughout history that were designed to create a balance of determination where it regards mental competency to stand trial. The McNaughten Rule was the common choice for the last 100 years. The McNaughten Rule established that the offender had to know that what he had done was wrong.

In 1963, the New York Legislature passed document No. 8. On pages 18-19 of this docuent, the courts revised the McNaughten Rule’s theory of the offender knowing that what he did was wrong. The more modern view that encompasses the scientific knowledge of the day as it relates to mental illness, only requires that an offender has a substantial capacity to know or appreciate that what they have done is wrong. A New York Criminal Lawyer said some states include this wording in legal statutes that claim the person may be guilty, but still mentally ill. In states that have a guilty, but mentally ill statute, the person who is found guilty of the crime is sentenced to a mental institution until they are deemed cured, then they are transferred to a penitentiary where they will serve the remainder of their sentences. In 1970, this option was not available. One particularly heinous crime brought this legal problem to the forefront of public attention.

In 1970, a sixteen year old boy was working in a New York apartment building as a porter. One of his duties was to fix minor problems within the apartments. One day, a woman called in a problem with her blinds, the porter responded to fix them and entered her apartment. She was later found raped and brutally stabbed numerous times. The knife was left protruding from her buttocks when the offender left the scene. Before her body was found, the porter had shown up at the fire station next door to the apartment building with a severe cut on one of his hands. He told the firemen that he had cut his hand on some barbed wire. The firemen transported him to the hospital to receive stitches. The boy went home and told his mother that he had fallen on a bag that had glass in it and cut his hand. He was later arrested and told the police a different story about how he had cut his hand.

Published on: July 29, 2012

Defendant Contends Sentencing was Unconstitutional

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 15 December 1981, defendant was convicted of several drug crimes (which includes marijuana possession, heroin possession, etc.), viz: Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree and Criminal Use of Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree. Defendant was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

The Issue:

Published on: July 28, 2012

Court Looks at Sentencing in Violent vs. Nonviolent Offenses

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant is charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of § 220.39(1) of the Penal Law, committed on 18 October 1973, and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of § 220.16(1) of the Penal Law, committed on 23 October 1973. The narcotic drug involved in each instance was heroin; heroin sale and heroin possession.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that under the revised drug laws which became effective on 1 September 1973, each of the crimes charged is classified as an A–III felony, punishable by an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the minimum period of which, for a first offender, is from one to eight and one-third years, and the maximum of which is life imprisonment.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Defendant Contends Wiretap Evidence was Not Probable Cause

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

The seizure of evidence from the defendant was an offshoot of a joint investigation undertaken by the DEA and New York State law enforcement authorities. The purpose of the investigation was to identify the members of a drug dealing organization, its suppliers and customers, and to locate stash and distribution locations. he investigation began at least as early as 27 September 1990, when several eavesdropping warrants were issued permitting the authorities to gather information concerning narcotics trafficking being done by a large number of people including man-one and his brother, man-two.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said through the wiretaps, surveillance and a confidential informant, the agent in charge of the operation had established, by 17 January 1991, that the organization used an apartment at the Bronx to store and package heroin for sale; that another place at Walton Avenue was being used to store narcotics and narcotics packaging paraphernalia; and that another place in Wyatt Avenue was being used to discuss their narcotics business. Moreover, the agent was aware that the DEA’s wiretaps showed a pattern of conversations that are coded, cryptic and carefully worded. According to the agent, the intercepted conversations contain repeated references to iron and board and for clothes, which he believed to be references to narcotics packaging paraphernalia. Narcotics, as the agent averred, were discussed in terms of food, bottles, cases of beer, and clothes.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Court Discusses Forfeiture of Property Used to Commit a Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

A special proceeding has been instituted to declare a forfeiture of respondent’s 1987 Volkswagen which was seized during the course of his arrest on a drug possession charge.

The arresting officer claims that he observed respondent arriving in his vehicle at a known drug location, then he saw him exit the vehicle and enter an abandoned building where he purchased a white glassine envelope alleged to contain heroin. A New York DWI Lawyer said after returning to the vehicle and driving away, respondent was apprehended and placed under arrest and his vehicle seized.