New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: July 23, 2012

Defendant Ordered to Turn Over Assets

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 23, 2012

Court Decides jurisdiction Between State and Federal Court

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. A New York Criminal Lawyer said 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 23, 2012

Attorneys Accused of White Collar Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The rights that are provided to all citizens of the United States by the United States Constitution are considered integral to the operation of our government as a whole. One of these inalienable rights is spelled out in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A New York Criminal Lawyer said it is the right against self- incrimination in a criminal trial. The question of how far the right against self-incrimination extends can be argued as it was in 1960 when a group of attorneys were indicted for illegally soliciting legal business for their firm. They were later found guilty of criminal contempt of court and appealed their convictions.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the attorneys were charged with contempt of court for refusing to testify in a case against another attorney and invoking the Fifth Amendment protections toward that end. They contend that they could not testify against one of the attorneys that they worked with without incriminating themselves. They further contend that the Grand Jury was being used illegally by the office of the prosecutor to obtain statements from them that would be used in later cases to prosecute them. They were subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury in regards to a case against a co-worker involved in illegally soliciting business. The attorneys each appeared as they were subpoenaed, however, upon being called to testify, they each presented the court with a letter invoking their rights to remain silent in order to not incriminate themselves.

The prosecutor then asked to speak with them outside of the hearing of the Grand Jury. Each attorney was told that the Grand Jury was prepared to grant them immunity in the current case if they testified before the Grand Jury. Each one was called back in and the foreman of the Grand Jury was instructed by the prosecutor to direct each of them to answer the question. The question was posed and the order was given. The attorneys still refused to testify. A New York Criminal Lawyer said following the Grand Jury court, the prosecutor presented each of the attorneys with the charge of contempt of court. They were arrested, tried, and found guilty. Each of them filed appeals of the verdict stating that it was unconstitutional to charge them with contempt of court for failing to provide testimony that would tend to incriminate them.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Court Discusses Constitutionality of Police Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

In a criminal proceeding, a New York Criminal Lawyer said that, a computer store located at West 57th Street between Eighth and Ninth Avenues was burglarized. Police Officer Maselli, on patrol in an unmarked yellow cab, heard a radio run of two Black males who were involved in the burglary. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he proceeded to the scene of the computer crime where he spoke to the doorman of the building in which the store was located. This witness gave him the additional information that the two men were wearing blue jeans and sneakers and had last been seen running west on 57th Street toward Ninth Avenue.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, Maselli then began to drive around the area until he reached Eighth Avenue between 47th and 48th Streets, where he saw two Black people wearing jeans and sneakers, walking south. One, a man, was carrying what Maselli believed to be a television set. The other appeared to be female. Maselli stopped the cab approximately twenty feet from them and approached, displaying his shield, while his partner approached from the other side. Without making any inquiry whatsoever, Maselli put the two up against the wall and, after discovering that the “television” which the male put down was actually a computer, placed both under arrest. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendants were then taken to the computer crime scene where they were displayed to another witness, Linda Siegfried, who lived in an apartment above the store. After the witness identified them, defendants were taken to the stationhouse and booked; a cord belonging to the computer which Washington had been carrying was recovered from Perry’s pocket.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, Maselli testified to an incident prior to his initial arrival at the computer crime scene which allegedly connected Perry and Washington to the crime and explained his subsequent stop of them. Maselli told of seeing “two male blacks” turning into Eighth Avenue from 54th Street, where they had been walking in an easterly direction. One of the men was carrying a television, and it was his recollection of the two which caused him to drive to a more southerly area of Eighth Avenue after interviewing the doorman.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Defendant Appeals Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant was employed as an assistant comptroller of a Hospital. Allegedly, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was depositing checks payable to his employer in his own checking account. Thus, he was charged with five counts of grand larceny in the second degree. An audit by the Hospital revealed, and defendant admitted, that during the period from 1967 to 1972, such defalcations amounted to approximately $68,000.

According to defendant’s memorandum, and not controverted by the prosecution, the defendant was advised between his arraignment on 27 January 1976, and his plea of guilty on 24 February 1976, that if he made satisfactory restitution to his employer’s insurance carrier he would be allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor in satisfaction of the indictment.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Court Decides Admissibility of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 20 September 1960, some seven months after the commission of an armed robbery against a couple in Westchester County, defendant appeared at police headquarters in Cheyenne, Wyoming, requesting a pass, as an indigent, for a free night’s lodging with the Salvation Army. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said when he made a similar request the next night, the police radio dispatcher became suspicious. In response to an inquiry, defendant admitted that he could be wanted for questioning, thus, he was thereupon arrested by the jailer for vagrancy. Thereafter, a Captain was called, and defendant admitted that he might be wanted for questioning in New York on a robbery charge. The Captain then called in the resident F.B.I. agent. At about 10 o’clock that night, according to the Captain, defendant orally confessed to having committed the robbery, although he refused to sign a statement.

The following day, the Cheyenne authorities advised the Westchester authorities that defendant had been apprehended, and confirmed that defendant had, indeed, been questioned about the robbery. That afternoon he was convicted of vagrancy and sentenced to a $50 fine or 50 days, the sentence to be suspended upon completion of investigation on the New York robbery charge.

Published on: July 23, 2012

Issue Revolves Around Whether Defendants Knew They Were in Possession of a Forged Instrument

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts

On 2 July 1982, defendant presented a check in the amount of $254.78 to a cashier employed by a Market to pay for a $30.06 bill for groceries. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the check was made payable to person-one and drawn against an account maintained by a corporation.

The check was presented with the Market’s customer check cashing card which had been issued to person-one. At the time the check was presented to the cashier, it bore the signature of person-two, as maker on behalf of the corporation, and was indorsed on the reverse side of the check in the name of person-one. In order to receive cash to return to defendant, the cashier went to the service counter where she handed the check and the check cashing card to the head cashier. The head cashier recognized the check as one for which an alert had been received by the store a few days earlier, thus, he instructed the cashier to detain defendant, and called the police and the assistant store manager. Thereafter, defendant indicated to the assistant store manager that the check was his. (Defendant repeatedly denied that this conversation with the assistant store manager ever occurred.) While the assistant store manager attempted to detain defendant, defendant left the store. The assistant store manager followed defendant out of the store and identified him to the police.

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Decides Wire Fraud Matter

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.

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 22, 2012

Defendant Petitions Review of Case Under DLRA

by Stephen Bilkis

New York provides that criminal offenders who have been convicted of certain drug possession crimes and related offenses have the ability to petition the court to vacate their indeterminate sentences and impose a determinate sentence. Prior to 2009, indeterminate sentences for drug crimes and other offenses were common. The concept behind the indeterminate sentence was that it allowed the court and correctional system to work together to customize a fair sentence for each offender. However, it did not take long to realize that customization could also be a synonym for prejudicial sentencing. The Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 was placed into effect to eliminate the subjective atmosphere created by the process of indeterminate sentences. Indeterminate sentences often meant that the time that one offender served was completely different from the sentence that was served by a person who committed the same crime, often a co-defendant of the same crime. The unjust diversity that befell the victims of indeterminate sentencing was the target of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009.

Under the DLRA a person who was assigned an indeterminate sentence prior to 2009 could appeal to have their sentence vacated and a new one imposed. In order to qualify for the resentencing, an offender must meet certain requirements. They must not have been convicted of certain violent felonies within ten years of the time that they file their requests. There are also other requirements that are necessary for a person to meet before they can be resentenced.

One inmate who petitioned for a review of his sentencing under the DLRA of 2009, was incarcerated based on his conviction on November 5, 2004 for the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is a class B drug felony in the state of New York. One of the requirements for resentencing under the DLRA is that the offender is an addict and needs treatment for a drug addiction rather than incarceration. This offender contended that he was not a drug dealer at all, but that he was actually an addict who was dealing to support his own habit. He requested resentencing under the DLRA.

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Discusses Jury Selection

by Stephen Bilkis

When a person is charged with a felony crime, their case is sent to a Grand Jury in most states before the indictment is confirmed and sent to trial. The Grand Jury is a group of jurors who review the circumstances surrounding a case and determine with the guidance of the prosecutor from the District Attorney’s office if the elements of the crime have been met to proceed with a prosecution. At each stage of a criminal trial, there are requirements that must be met in order for the state to prosecute a person for the commission of a crime.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said these steps are important to protect the rights of every citizen in the United States. While it may seem to some that criminals are provided with too many rights and the ability to escape justice based on mistakes that are made by the prosecution team, it is important to remember that these safeguards are in place to enable a defense team to protect an innocent person from being incarcerated for a crime that they did not commit. At any stage of a criminal prosecution, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. The job of the defense attorney is to protect the rights of all citizens by ensuring that the prosecution is not allowed to circumvent the safeguards that the legislature has placed in effect. Toward this end, many times defense attorneys notice improprieties in legal process that could have long reaching effects on all people.

One case of this type was heard in New York on March 17, 1975. In this case, the defense team noticed that the statutory requirements that were on the law books were not being followed by the Kings County New York court system. The process for the selection of grand jurors was detailed in the Judiciary Law § 609. The statute requires that the county clerk of each county must make an investigation of persons who are qualified to serve as trial jurors. The clerk will then require that the jurors provide legible fingerprints of both hands in order to ensure that they have not been convicted of any felony and certain misdemeanor charges in the state of New York. In this statute, the wording of the statute itself refers to the juror pool as applicants for the Grand Jury.