New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: July 7, 2012

Defendant Attacked While Swimming in the Ocean in Queens

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the Appellate Division in the Second Department. The appellant of the case is the People of the State of New York. The People are represented by Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Kew Gardens with Nicoletta J. Caferri, Steven J. Chananie, and Barbara D. Underwood for counsel. The respondent of the case is Pedro Alvarez. The defendant is represented by the law offices of Michael Vincent Ricci located in Whitestone. The counsel for the defendant is Robert A. Katz. The case is being heard in front of Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Miller, and Pizzuto, JJ.

The People of the State of New York are appealing an order that was made by the Supreme Court of Queens County. The order is from the 8th of September, 1992 and granted the defendant the motion to have the indictment made against him dismissed.

Case Background

Published on: July 7, 2012

Second Indictment of Defendant Nullifies First Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant of the case is Gus Franco. The case is being heard in the criminal term of the Queens County Supreme Court in the state of New York.

The defendant has moved to have the instant indictment against him dismissed. The defendant basis his argument on the grounds that there is a legal impediment for the conviction of the crimes that he is being charged with. This motion is necessary at this point in the case as there has been an issue of evidence being re-submitted in the case. The District Attorney is seeking re-submit evidence to a second grand jury and this has resulted in no true bill on all counts of the indictment.

Case History

Published on: July 7, 2012

Defendant Claims Rights Against Doube Jeopardy Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, Appellate Division. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. The appellant of the case is Dawson Sharpe.

The defendant is appealing an order that was made by the Queens County Supreme Court on the 30th of October, 1986. The order convicted the defendant of first degree burglary, first degree robbery, second degree kidnapping, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree. There are two judgments that convicted the defendant for first degree rape and attempted sodomy in the first degree as well as other counts of robbery, rape, and sodomy.

Case History

Published on: July 7, 2012

Court Finds Prejudice Against the Defendant, Orders New Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with Juan S. Afif, the petitioner. The respondents in the matter include Gordon M. Ambach, the Commissioner of Education, et al. The case is being heard in the Third Department Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the petitioner in the case, Juan S. Afif was charged with alleged sexual abuse of a patient while conducting a gynecological examination. The charges were made by the Office of Professional Medical Conduct. Included in the charges were abusing a patient physically, gross negligence, fraud, and the practice of medicine with moral unfitness in the profession.

Published on: July 7, 2012

Defendant Requests Case be Moved to Prevent Prejudice

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The People of the State of New York are the appellants in the case. The respondent of the case is Sterling Moore. Judge Wachtler is hearing the case.

The defendant was convicted in Kings County for sexual abuse and rape in the first degree. The offenses that the defendant was charged with occurred in his car that was parked in Queens County near the border of Kings County. The trial court gave jurisdiction to the Kings County Court for prosecution. The Appellate division reversed this order of jurisdiction and ordered a new trial. The reason was that there was a question of if the crimes were committed within 500 yards of the boundary of the two counties in question.

The People of the State of New York are appealing this reversal and argue that Kings County did have jurisdiction over the case under CPL 20.40 that states that any offense that is committed in a vehicle can be tried in any county that the vehicle passed through during the trip.

Published on: July 7, 2012

Defendant Claims Charges Should Not Have Been Combined

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York is the respondent in the case. The appellant in the matter is Morris Pinkas, also referred to as Morris Pinkasovitz. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

The defendant is appealing an order made by the Queens County Supreme Court. The order was made on the 13th of June, 1988 and convicted the defendant of sexual abuse in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.

Case Background

Published on: July 6, 2012

Defendant Claims Right to a Speedy Trial was Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal being heard in the First Judicial Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The People of the State of New York are the respondents. The defendant and appellant of the case is Clarence Williams who is also known under the name Fletcher Anderson Worrell.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of New York County that convicted him of robbery in the first degree and rape in the first degree. The issue in front of the court is whether or not the statutory and constitutional rights of the defendant for a speedy trial were violated. The additional issue in this case is whether there should have been an inquiry of the jurors as to whether they had read anything in the newspaper about the trial before it began.

Case Background

Published on: July 6, 2012

Summary Judgment Awarded to Administration for Children’s Services

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being held in the Family Court of Queens County. The matter deals with the children Michelle V., Marlon V., and Kathy V., all under the age of 18 and allegedly abused by the respondent Jorge V. Judge Edwina G. Richardson-Mendelson is hearing the case.

Case Background

On the fifth of September, 2006, the ACS (Administration for Children’s Services) filed a petition alleging that the respondent, Jorge V. sexually abused two foster children while they were in his care. The two children were Jocelyn C. and Kimberly C. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the ACS alleges in the petition that these acts constitute derivate abuse and neglect of his biological children.

Published on: July 6, 2012

Court Orders New Trial in Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. The appellant is C. James Lombardi. The case is being heard in the Court of Appeals of New York.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant has been convicted of three counts of kidnapping, one count of attempted rape in the first degree, three counts of assault in the second degree, and one count of attempted assault in the second degree. The defendant has been sentenced to forty years to life in prison on the kidnapping charges. There are lesser concurrent terms for the other charges.

There are similarities in the crimes that were committed by the defendant, but each involved different acts and different people. The incidents were separated by long periods of time. The indictment charged each crime as a separate matter.

Published on: July 6, 2012

Defendant Seeks Resentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York versus the defendant Richard DeMarco a/k/a Richard Machado. The case is being heard in the Queens County Court. Judge John F. Scileppi is residing over the case.

The defendant of the case has moved for a writ of error and motions for an order to correct his sentence. He has three separate arguments for this relief.

Defendant’s Arguments