New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: July 22, 2014

People v Murphy

by Stephen Bilkis

People v Murphy

Court Discusses Whether the Sentence Imposed was Excessive in Driving While Intoxicated Offenses

The defendant was convicted of aggravated driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2-a) (b), driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), and driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3). The defendant was sentenced to a definite term of one year on each count that would run concurrently. The defendant appealed the sentence on the ground that it was excessive. The defendant was granted a stay of execution of the sentence pending decision of the Appellate Division.

Published on: July 21, 2014

Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent is the subject of a sex offender civil management petition filed pursuant to article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law. A hearing was conducted to determine whether probable cause exists to believe respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 (k). The petitioner called one witness, a Psychiatric examiner. Although the court did not credit certain aspects of her testimony, as explained infra, the court found her testimony to be credible. The respondent did not call any witnesses.

A New York Sex Crimes lawyer said that witness is employed by the New York State Office of Mental Health since August 2007 testified that she is both a psychologist and psychiatrist currently evaluating and diagnosing sex offenders. She testified that she had previously worked in New York State at the Central New York Psychiatric Center treating and evaluating sex offenders and had also worked at the Albany Correctional Facility, as the Acting Coordinator of the Mental Health Unit, where she did sex offender evaluation and provided some crisis intervention treatment while supervising a staff of eight. Outside New York State, She testified, she had evaluated criminal female offenders and juveniles in California as part of her doctoral program and did community mental health work in New Hampshire. She further stated that she had been to over 10 training sessions and conferences with experts in the field of sex offenders from March 2006 through August 2008.

The witness said she had evaluated or diagnosed criminal sex offenders with disorders related to thought, mood, substance abuse, sex and personality. She stated that she had evaluated over 40 sex offenders pursuant to article 10 and approximately 100 sex offenders in total. Additionally, she testified that she teaches developmental psychology and an undergraduate course in forensic behavioral science.

Published on: July 21, 2014

Rodriguez v. Wolfe

by Stephen Bilkis

Rodriguez v. Wolfe

Court Discusses Whether Forum Non Conveniens Precluded it from Exercising Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

The decedent who was a passenger in one of the motor vehicles involved in a car accident died in Florida after the defendant was DWI driving while intoxicated. The defendant pled guilty and was sentenced for vehicular manslaughter. The administrator of the decedent’s estate sought to attach insurance policy issued to the defendant in connection with the cause of action arising out of accident in Florida. The decedent was a member of the United States Navy who resided in Florida but was a domiciled in New York prior to entering the Navy. The decedent’s administrator who was his father was a domicile of New York as well as the fact that the estate was being processed in New York, demonstrated that the estate was a resident of New York. The criminal defendant however opposed the motion on the ground that New York was not the appropriate forum but Florida was the forum to bring the motion.

Published on: July 20, 2014

70.25, subd. 2, of the Penal Law

by Stephen Bilkis

In April 1969, the relator was convicted in the Nassau County Court of one count of grand larceny in the third degree, and one count of forgery in the third degree, on the basis of his prior plea of guilty. He was sentenced, on each count, to imprisonment in the Nassau County Jail for a period of one year, said terms to be served consecutively.

A Nassau County Criminal lawyer said that in November 1968, the relator had falsely drawn four checks, all on the same bank account and to the order of the same payee, and that he had received from the payee named in the purported checks property and cash having an aggregate value of more than $250.00.

The Relator contends that since both of the offenses to which he pleaded guilty arose from the same transaction, the issuance of a forged instrument and the receipt of value therefor, the Court lacked power to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment.

Published on: July 18, 2014

Rules of Professional Conduct

by Stephen Bilkis

A Queens Petit Larceny Lawyer said that, the defendant is charged with one count each of assault in the third degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, in the accusatory instrument, the security officer for Conway Department Store, stated that on July 5, 2010, he observed the defendant remove a toy and three pieces of chocolate from the store shelves, place the items into a black plastic bag and leave the store without paying for the merchandise. The security officer also stated that he apprehended the defendant outside the store and recovered the merchandise from defendant’s black plastic bag. He so stated that the defendant did not have permission or authority to take, remove, use, possess, or otherwise exercise control over said merchandise without paying for it. He also stated that as he stopped the defendant, she became upset and grabbed a metal rod striking him on the head causing a cut to his head, bleeding and substantial pain. He also stated that he sought medical treatment at a local hospital and received stitches to his head. Police Officer recovered the metal rod from inside the store.

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, at the time of the incident, an eye witness telephoned 911. According to the defendant, the caller stated that a young man was beating up an elderly woman. The defendant maintains this witness’ account of the incident is exculpatory and has requested that the People turn over the caller’s name, address and telephone number. On February 18, 2011, the People gave a copy of the 911 call to the defendant without the identifying information of the caller. At that time, the Honorable Judge directed the People to provide the defendant access to the Brady material, meaning the caller’s contact information. On April 18, 2011, this court directed the People to provide the defendant with the contact information of the witness/telephone caller. At the time of the filing of defendant’s motion, August 17, 2011, the People had not turned over such information to the defendant.

Published on: July 18, 2014

Lynch-Fina v. Paredes

by Stephen Bilkis

Lynch-Fina v. Paredes

Court Discusses Whether Section 388 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was Limited to only Negligence

The plaintiff, who was the administratrix of the estate of the decedent, who was a young infant bought an action against the defendants who were the owner of the motor vehicle and the driver of the motor vehicle. The driver of the motor vehicle pled guilty to manslaughter in the second degree. The owner of the motor vehicle requested summary judgment as the liability under section 388 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law imposed on her as owner only extended to negligent acts rather than negligent and reckless conduct. The defendant used the case of Ingle v. Mark, 58 Misc.2d 895 where there was a refusal by the criminal court to make the owner guilty of punitive damages because the driver had acted in a grossly negligent manner.

Published on: July 16, 2014

Defendant File Appeal Based on Improper Grand Jury Process

by Stephen Bilkis

A man has been charged with grand larceny in the third and fourth degrees, forgery in the second degree, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and petit larceny. It is also alleged that the man executed forged savings account withdrawal slips on six separate occasions thereby stealing a total of $3,400.00.

By decision, the criminal court found that legally sufficient evidence was presented to sustain each of the offenses charged in the indictment. Yet, the court reserved decision on the man’s motion to dismiss the indictment because of its concern for the integrity of the grand jury process, based upon the possible impropriety of the prosecutor’s legal instructions to the grand jury. More specifically, the court questioned the legality of the prosecutor specifically directing the grand jury to disregard exculpatory testimonial evidence of a non-identification of the man at a line-up, after the prosecutor had unilaterally introduced the evidence through the testimony of an alleged eyewitness.

The alleged eyewitness was the former branch manager of a banking institution in which the subject transactions allegedly occurred. After testifying that there were times that he performed the functions of a teller, he was shown three share withdrawal receipts pertaining to four withdrawal transactions that had occurred. By referring to the listed teller identification number on each of those receipts, the witness testified that he performed the four subject transactions, totaling $2,400.00 in withdrawals from the savings account. The witness was then questioned by the prosecutor about his presence and participation in a lineup at the police precinct.

Published on: July 13, 2014

New York Court Discusses Fellow Officer Rule

by Stephen Bilkis

In November 2007, defendant was charged with violating one count of Section 1192.2 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic law (Driving While Intoxicated [DWI]), a misdemeanor, and one count of Section 1192.2(a) of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic law (Aggravated DWI), also a misdemeanor.

A Nassau County Criminal lawyer said that a pre-trial hearing was ordered to determine defendant’s motion to suppress. Thus, in October 2008 a hearing was held to determine the admissibility at trial of evidence obtained against the defendant. The People produced the arresting officer, as a witness to testify. The Police Officer is a member of the Nassau County Police Department. The criminal defendant did not call any witnesses.

Based upon the credible evidence advanced at the hearing, the Court concludes the following: In November 2007 the Police Officer was working the night tour of duty. He was in a marked police vehicle, in uniform and working alone. At approximately 12:15 A.M. He received a radio call of a motor vehicle accident in the vicinity of East Shore Road in Great Neck. Upon his arrival the Officer observed a vehicle with extensive front end damage in the middle to left lane of traffic on the northbound side. The defendant was standing directly next to the vehicle. The Officer asked defendant where he was coming from and defendant replied he was “coming back from school to visit his girlfriend.”

Published on: July 11, 2014

UC’s experience and training

by Stephen Bilkis

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, those branches of the criminal defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony are denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

A Queens Drug Crime Lawyer said that, the defendant was arrested during a so-called buy and bust operation after an undercover officer observed him give a quantity of pills to a man on the street in exchange for a $10 bill at 160th Street and Jamaica Avenue in Queens County. The defendant moved, inter alia, to suppress certain items, including narcotics found on his person, as well as identification testimony by an undercover police officer, on the ground that the police did not have probable cause for his arrest. The Supreme Court concluded that the People failed to establish probable cause for the defendant’s arrest and granted his motion.

The issue in this case is whether criminal defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence against him on the ground that there exist no probable cause during his arrest.

Published on: July 10, 2014

Duress was inherent in the choice given these petitioners

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is charged with violating the Penal Law, Menacing in the Second Degree and Disorderly Conduct.

The People seek to introduce, and the defendant seeks to suppress, a written statement given by the defendant to the Port Authority Police. A Huntley hearing was held before Judicial Hearing Officer. The People called three witnesses. The defendant did not call any witnesses. The Court has reviewed the hearing transcript, the criminal court file and memoranda of law submitted by the People and the defendant to the Judicial Hearing Officer. Based upon the foregoing, and the recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this court adopts the Judicial Hearing Officer’s Findings of Fact, but modifies in part the Conclusions of Law, by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the statement he gave to the Port Authority police.

The testimony adduced at the hearing reveals the charges in this action originate from a traffic dispute that occurred on the morning of August 14, 1997. The two complainants allege that a man followed them off the highway into a parking lot near building 14 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, their place of employment. They further stated that the man proceeded to threaten them while brandishing a handgun. The complainant’s supervisor is alleged to have witnessed the incident.