New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: July 11, 2012

Defendant Calls for Summary Judgement

by Stephen Bilkis

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. or “MERS” as the nominee for the America’s Wholesale Lender and its successors are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendants in the matter are Carole Folkes, the New York City Environmental Control Board, Baront Associates, LLC, the Judication Bureau, the New York City Transit, and John Doe (name is being withheld). The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Judge Schlesinger is hearing the case.

Case Background

The action for this case started in 2005 and should have been a straightforward matter involving a foreclosure. However, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said there have been several issues that have come up in regard to the issue. The action has required an intervenor, Baron Associates, LLC. Baron filed a cross claim against the defendant Carole Folkes and another counter claim against the plaintiff Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The index number for the case is 2005, but a note of issue was not filed in the matter until December of 2009.

Published on: July 11, 2012

Court Discusses RICO Claim

by Stephen Bilkis

Ideal Steel Supply Corporation is the plaintiff in this case. The defendants in the case are Marshall H. Beil, et al. the case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Queens County. Judge Peter Joseph Kelly is presiding over the hearing.

The defendants have moved for an order to have the complaints made against them by the plaintiff dismissed.

Case Background

Published on: July 10, 2012

Court Discusses RICO Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Robert Ritchie et al are the respondents in the matter. The appellant in this case is Carvel Corporation. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Second Department.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the appellant is represented by Jeffery A. Klatzkow from Yonkers. The respondents are represented by Herzfield & Rubin, P.C. from New York City. David B. Hamm, Herbert Rubin, Linda M. Brown, and Peter Kurshan are acting as counsel for the respondents.

The case is being heard in front of Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Harwood, and Rosenblatt, JJ.

Published on: July 10, 2012

Attorney Disbared in Wire Fraud Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with a matter concerning the attorney and counselor at law, Cheddi B. Goberdhan. The petitioner in the matter is the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts. Cheddi B. Goberdhan is the respondent. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division; Second Judicial Department. A. Gail Prudenti, P.J. , William F. Mastro, Peter B. Skelos, Reinaldo E. Rivera, and Leonard B. Austin, JJ are the judges hearing the case.

Case Background

The Grievance Committee from the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts has motioned for the name of the respondent to be taken off the roll of attorneys and counselors at law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the reason for this motion is that the respondent was convicted of a felony, which is in violation of Judiciary Law Section 904.

Published on: July 10, 2012

Court Decides Parole for SOMTA Qualifying Offense

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent Mustafa Rashid pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree robbery, and single counts of first-degree burglar, first-degree rape, and first-degree sodomy. This plea satisfied charges arising from two separate criminal incident the robbery of a gas station attendant and a home invasion, for which Rashid was arrested and indicted separately in 1988. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 8 to 16 years, running from his arrest.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, Rashid was released to parole supervision in July 1999, after serving 11 years and eight months of his sentence. But he was again arrested and indicted separately for three robberies. Thereafter, he pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree robbery, for each of which he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 2 to 4 years, and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, for which he was sentenced to prison for one year. The indictment satisfied by Rashid’s plea to the weapon-possession count also accused him of sexual abuse. These sentences ran concurrently to each other but consecutively to the undischarged portion of the indeterminate sentence imposed on Rashid in 1992. He was subsequently released to parole supervision.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, Rashid was returned to prison for violating the conditions of his parole. He was released to parole supervision again in April 2007, but went back to prison after violating the conditions of his parole in August of that year. Rashid was next released to parole supervision in early 2008. He was arrested for the misdemeanor crimes of petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree on May 6, 2008. Upon pleading guilty to petit larceny, Rashid received a definite sentence, which he served at Rikers Island, a local correctional facility. Rashid remained subject to the supervision of the State Division of Parole throughout his time at Rikers Island, but his parole was not revoked, apparently because his jail sentence ended days before his parole expiration date: Rashid was freed from Rikers Island, and his parole supervision ended, when he reached the maximum term (20 years) of his consecutive indeterminate sentences.

Published on: July 9, 2012

Parole Board Decides Whether to Grant Discretionary Parole Release

by Stephen Bilkis

Petitioner GAROFOLO, an inmate in the care and custody of the New York State Department of Correction Services since 1977, is currently incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, Dannemora, New York. He was convicted in 1977 of a sex crime of Rape in the First Degree, Sodomy in the First Degree and Burglary in the Second Degree for his attack on an estranged girlfriend. For these crimes petitioner GAROFOLO received indeterminate concurrent sentences of zero to 25 years each on the rape and sodomy charges and zero to 15 years on the burglary charge. Also, in 1977, New York DWI Lawyer said he was convicted of two counts of Murder in the Second Degree for his killing of Catherine Wilkinson with a police baton. Petitioner GAROFOLO dumped the victim’s body in a wooded area in Suffolk County, near a bar he went to with his victim. For the murder convictions he was sentenced to 25 years to life on each murder count, to be served concurrently with the sex crime of rape, sodomy and burglary sentences.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, petitioner GAROFOLO had his initial Parole Board Release interview, which was his earliest possible release date. At that time, he was denied discretionary parole release. Then, he had three subsequent parole release interviews and was denied parole at each interview. GAROFOLO, after parole denial, perfected and filed an administrative appeal which was ultimately denied. After exhausting his administrative remedies he appealed his parole denial by commencing a petition. Petitioner seeks an order, pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, vacating the July 6, 2008 decision of the New York State Board of Parole (PAROLE BOARD) denying him parole and granting him either immediate release on parole or a de novo parole hearing. Respondent FELIX ROSA (ROSA), Chairman of the BOARD OF PAROLE, opposes the petition and seeks its dismissal.

Petitioner GAROFOLO contends that he was wrongfully denied a discretionary parole release by respondent PAROLE BOARD. The basis of the instant petition is that respondent PAROLE BOARD acted unlawfully because: the term of Parole Commissioner Jennifer Arena, one of the three Parole Commissioners at the July 8, 2008 hearing, had expired; certain comments of Parole Commissioner James B. Ferguson during petitioner’s hearing demonstrated reliance on matters not within the purview of the PAROLE BOARD; and, the PAROLE BOARD’S denial of parole release was based solely on petitioner’s underlying criminal offenses to the exclusion of all other statutorily mandated factors of consideration, which, pursuant to Matter of Russo v New York State Board of Parole is “irrationality bordering on impropriety.”

Published on: July 9, 2012

Court Decides if Physical Resistance Necessary for Rape Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 27 August 1979 at about 6:00 P.M., the complainant, a forty-nine year old woman, who was five feet tall and who weighed 130 pounds, entered the lobby of her apartment building. She was returning home from work. When an elevator arrived, the complainant entered and pressed the button for the tenth floor where her apartment was located. A young male entered the elevator with her and pressed the button for another floor. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the next thing the complainant noticed was the elevator stopping. Upon looking up to see if it was her floor, she saw the defendant standing by the elevator buttons, manipulating them. She also saw that the elevator was stopped between floors, with the door to the elevator shaft being open. However, the alarm bell of the elevator did not go off. Allegedly, the young male, a fifteen year old, who was approximately five feet seven inches tall and weighed in excess of two hundred pounds, turned around and told her to take her clothes off, and undress. When the complainant did not respond, the defendant repeated this demand. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the complainant then complied and was subjected to acts of sexual intercourse and sodomy during the next ten to fifteen minutes. Following this, the defendant told the complainant to get dressed, and he started the elevator back up, eventually getting out at the twenty-second floor. The complainant was then able to get the elevator back down to her floor, where she got out, went into her apartment, and called the development’s security police force. They then contacted the New York City Police Department. The defendant was identified by the complainant later that evening at the security police offices and was arrested.

Thereafter, the defendant was indicted on charges of Rape in the First Degree and Sodomy in the First Degree.

Published on: July 9, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1992, the appellant was charged and convicted with sex crimes namely rape and sexual abuse. In 1994, he was paroled and was found to have violated the parole. Subsequently, he was convicted for the criminal sale of a controlled substance and applied for parole. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said while on parole, he was convicted of attempted rape for forcing himself upon the 68-year old mother of his then-girlfriend. He was sentenced to 8 years of incarceration. While incarcerated, he was further convicted of attempted rape in the first degree based on a rape he committed in July 1996.

A nonjury trial was formed to hear the case of the appellant. After which, it found that the appellant was a “detained sex offender” under article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, also known as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act. The Supreme Court then conducted a dispositional hearing, after which it determined that the appellant was a dangerous [84 A.D.3d 1100] sexual offender requiring civil confinement and ordered such confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.07[f]).

A psychiatrist, the State’s expert, testified that the appellant suffers from, among other things, paraphilia NOS (not otherwise specified) and antisocial personality disorder. He detailed the appellant’s specific pattern of deviant sexual arousal [84 A.D.3d 1101] and his inability to control his impulses. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he testified that the appellant, because of his condition and the resulting symptoms, was predisposed to committing sexual offenses and had serious difficulty controlling such behavior.

Published on: July 9, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant has a history of being arrested under different names.

On 12 August 1972, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant was arrested for possession of burglar’s tools while on a fire escape. He gave a name, name-one, with a date of birth of 30 December 1946 and an address of 180 Saratoga Avenue in Kings County.

Published on: July 8, 2012

Court Allows Use of Expert Witness to Establish False Confession was Made

by Stephen Bilkis

Queens Rape 16

The People of the State of New York are the respondents of the case. The appellant of the case is Khemwattie Bedessie. The case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York.

The appellant, Khemwattie Bedessie has asked for the time to consider the testimony from an expert based on the issue of reliability of the confession. A New York DWI Lawyer said in certain cases expert testimony for false confessions are admitted, the expert in this particular case did not offer a testimony that was relevant to the defendant or this particular interrogation. As a result of this the trial judge did not abuse the discretion to hold a Frye hearing in the matter to determine whether the expert that offered testimonies was offering information that is generally accepted within the science community.