New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 26, 2014

New York had jurisdiction to prosecute him on the conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

An underlying investigation was conducted and it was focused on a garage operated by a man. The surveillance of the garage, combined with the information obtained from months of telephone calls intercepted pursuant to eavesdropping warrants, disclosed that the operations were headed by criminal individuals in three different cities. It was determined that the man headed the New York operations along with another, and the offender in this matter was their partner. The said individuals employed many others to drive, store, and otherwise take care of the drugs and equipment during the process. Indeed, the transportation and storage of the drugs was carefully planned so that the said individuals who acted as managers did not come into physical contact with the criminal drugs.

The offender and the man spoke frequently by telephone, both to tell one another about the progress of arranging for cars with the necessary hidden compartments and to report the progress of the trips by which drugs were transported to New York. When problems arose, such as a car being stopped or a driver being arrested, they discussed over the telephone how to deal with the situation. In one intercepted conversation, the offender specifically referred to his responsibility and to his intention to take care of the workers’ travel expenses related to problems encountered on a particular trip. And, on one occasion, the offender made a trip to New York, and visited the garage.

Afterward, one of the cars used by the operations was stopped and searched, turning up 21 kilograms of cocaine along with business cards, including the garage’s business card. Another of the cars was later retrieved from the parking lot of one shopping center and searched, and an additional 30 kilograms of the drug cocaine were recovered from a hidden compartment in it.

Published on: March 25, 2014

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny.

by Stephen Bilkis

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 28, 2010, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty and imposing sentence.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was charged, by felony complaint, with, inter alia, grand larceny in the first degree under Penal Law § 155.42. The felony complaint alleged that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully stole property exceeding one million dollars in value by using personal identifying information he received from four named individuals, and, inter alia, securing mortgages on two properties in the name of one of the alleged victims without that individual’s knowledge or permission. The defendant waived indictment by a grand jury and pleaded guilty under superior court information to grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree, although the plea to the scheme to defraud count was subsequently vacated at the time of sentencing. The charge in the superior court information named two financial institutions “and others” as alleged victims of the crimes. As the defendant properly contends, the judgment of conviction must be reversed, the plea vacated, and the superior court information dismissed.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny.

Published on: March 23, 2014

Mid-Atlantic Regional Laboratory

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant is charged with Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the 4th Degree, Unlawful Possession of Marijuana and Criminal Possession of a Hypodermic Instrument. The complaint alleges that defendant sold a bag of marijuana for $10 to an undercover police officer, and once arrested he was found to possess four more bags of marijuana and one hypodermic instrument.

A New York Marijuana Possession lawyer said that at arraignment, in order to convert the complaint into an information, the People filed with the court a long form supporting deposition, containing a series of paragraphs with boxes to check where applicable–a format approved in a case, and in compliance with CPL § 100.30. Insofar as relevant, the first page of the properly executed form contains a paragraph in which the undercover officer corroborates the contents of the complaint, and adds that he gave the recovered substances to another officer, for “field testing”. The second page of the supporting deposition contains two paragraphs in which Police Officer states that he tested both the substances purchased from the defendant and the substances recovered incident to his arrest.

Upon filing, the People requested that the court declare the complaint had thereby been converted to an information. Defense counsel objected on the ground that conversion could only be accomplished by the filing with the court of a standard police laboratory report showing the presence of marijuana. The criminal court reserved decision for a formal motion addressing the issue presented: whether for a charge of possession or sale of marijuana the affirmative opinion of a police witness who has received special training in the identification of marijuana coupled with a positive test result yielded by that same witness who has performed a chemical field test on the recovered substance is sufficient to convert a complaint into an information.

Published on: March 23, 2014

Plaintiff-bank’s allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff-bank’s allegations:

Sometime in May 2003, three discounted non-interest bearing promissory notes were fabricated by defendant-bank and certain of its subsidiaries and sold to plaintiff-bank, each bearing the face amount of $ 5 million; the sale was part of a global fraud scheme orchestrated by defendant-bank to generate money to assist nonparty P1, an Italian food conglomerate, to repay loans made to it by defendant-bank; the notes were issued by nonparty P2, a P1 subsidiary incorporated in Uruguay, to defendant-bank’s New York branch (defendant-bank NY), which in turn sold them to nonparty P3, a defendant-bank affiliate; plaintiff-bank purchased the notes from P3; the notes were each accompanied by a guarantee of payment executed by P1 and a side letter from P2 to criminal defendant-bank NY; the side letter recites P2’s certification that the proceeds of the “advance evidenced” by the notes will be utilized to finance the expansion of P1 South American subsidiaries’ raw material supply sources and to further upgrade and refurbish P1’s industrial plants in Brazil and other South American countries; the side letter also refers to the funds advanced as “financing” and sets forth projections of the value of the goods expected to be exported by P1 companies based in South America from 2003 through 2008; P1’s financial stability worsened and the Italian and Brazilian governments began criminal investigations into P1’s financial structure; and sometime in December 2003, P1’s distressed financial condition and the governmental criminal investigations became public knowledge; on 4 May 2004, the notes matured but have not been repaid; and, soon after, plaintiff-bank sold one of the notes to one of its affiliates, referred to by the parties as, plaintiff-bank Luxembourg.

Plaintiff-bank filed a claim, based on the notes in bankruptcy proceedings commenced in Italy against P1’s parent company, nonparty P0, for common-law fraud and aiding and abetting fraud, and seeks to recover $ 14,566,388.37 in compensatory damages and $45,000,000 in criminal punitive damages.

Published on: March 20, 2014

Syracuse office of the Department of Motor Vehicles

by Stephen Bilkis

A victim was seriously injured and his wife was killed as a result of a collision near Syracuse in August 1973. An eastbound vehicle operated by a driver, to whom an interim driver’s license had been issued two days earlier, crossed into the westbound lane and collided with the oncoming victim’s vehicle, as a consequence of the accident, the driver was convicted of driving while intoxicated (as a felony) and criminal negligent homicide.

A New York Criminal attorney said that it is claimed that the state is responsible for the injuries to the victim and the death of his wife because its agents and employees were negligent in establishing and operating the Onondaga County DWI Counter-Attack Program (Onondaga Program) in violation of the statutory authority for its creation, and were further negligent in issuing the interim driver’s license to the driver who, it is said, was not a proper candidate for such a license. The cases were tried in the Court of Claims on the issue of liability only, the parties having stipulated to reserve the issue of damages for later trial in the event liability was found. The trial court determined that the state’s agents and employees were negligent; that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries to the victim and the death of his wife; and that the claims were not proscribed by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The Court reversed and dismissed the claims.

Published on: March 20, 2014

Intoxilyzer 4011AS

by Stephen Bilkis

A Monroe County Sheriff’s Deputy observed the criminal defendant’s vehicle changing lanes without signaling while traveling northbound on Route 15 in the Town of Brighton. The deputy pulled over and approached the defendant’s vehicle. From outside the defendant’s car the deputy noticed the defendant’s hands were trembling as he looked through his wallet for his driver’s license. The deputy smelled the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on the defendant’s breath. The deputy observed the criminal defendant swaying slightly as he exited his vehicle. He also noticed the defendant’s face was flushed and he once again observed the odor of an alcoholic beverage. The deputy testified that the defendant was polite and courteous.

The Deputy then radioed for the Sheriff Department’s mobile DWI processing van which arrived within 20 minutes. The van operator observed that although the criminal defendant’s face was pale, his cheeks were flushed and he swayed when he walked. The van operator then tested the defendant’s breath on a CMI Intoxilyzer 4011AS instrument. At this point in the trial defense counsel objected to the introduction into evidence of the test result on the grounds that the People must present expert testimony to establish the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 4011AS.

The court allowed the prosecution to offer proof of the test results but reserved on the objection made by defense counsel. The People presented a very thorough memorandum citing several reasons why expert testimony is not necessary at the time of trial on the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 4011AS. The first ten pages of the memorandum set forth the background and development of the Intoxilyzer 4011AS. In addition, Federal and New York State legislative and administrative recognitions of the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 4011AS were set forth. However, the Court must only consider New York State statutory and administrative authority.

Published on: March 19, 2014

Section 100.20 Criminal solicitation, exemption

by Stephen Bilkis

The matters before the Criminal Court on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the charges against them of criminal solicitation in the fifth degree on the ground that there exists some jurisdictional or legal impediment to the defendants’ conviction and on the ground that the accusatory instruments are defective. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motions to dismiss the charges of criminal solicitation in the fifth degree.

A New York Criminal attorney said that all of the defendants were arrested on various streets in the Northeastern section of the City of Rochester allegedly attempting to buy small amounts of marijuana. Those streets, among them Hudson and Conkey Avenues and Berlin Street, have become known as open-air drug markets where marijuana, and in some areas cocaine and heroin, can be purchased on the streets. Those who live and work in those areas have become frustrated at the misuse of their neighborhoods for drug activity, that activity bringing with it increased public safety concerns for themselves and their families.

The potential for violence in connection with the open-air drug trafficking was illustrated and underscored in January 1995 with the murder of an individual, a resident of the surrounding suburb of Penfield, New York, was shot to death while reportedly attempting to purchase marijuana in one of these open-air drug markets on Berlin Street.

Published on: March 19, 2014

What followed elevated their seizures to full arrests

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant moves to suppress statements that he gave to the police, physical evidence recovered from his apartment, as well as identification testimony of a witness who identified him from a photo array. Defendant R. moves to suppress statements.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that at a suppression hearing pursuant to defendants’ applications to suppress evidence. Six witnesses, all current or retired members of the New York City Police Department, testified on behalf of the People. The defendants called no witnesses. Defendants urge to reject certain material portions of the testimony as incredible and untruthful. They particularly, but not exclusively, focus on the testimony of a Detective, and the contradictions between the testimony in general and the information contained in the paperwork prepared by the police during the investigation. The detective repeatedly contradicted himself on significant points and was forced to retract earlier statements on several occasions. There were instances in which his contradictions were brought to his attention and he was at a loss to satisfactorily explain them. Several of his explanations for his and his fellow detectives’ actions fly in the face of common sense.

A New York Criminal attorney said that the detective was the lead detective in a police team that was investigating of the deaths of 2 individuals. Their bodies had been discovered in the bathroom of an apartment, which was located at West Street. Both men had been bound with duct tape and shot through the head. When the detective and his team went to the apartment in April 2004 they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and observed marijuana residue. The police later discovered that Ashton had been a low-level drug dealer.

Published on: March 19, 2014

The man stated that he has been drug and alcohol free

by Stephen Bilkis

A man is charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. It is alleged that the man was seated in the driver’s seat of a car and that a bag of crack cocaine, which had an aggregate weight in excess of one eighth of an ounce, along with a small amount of marijuana, were inside the car. Another individual in the car was indicted as the man’s accomplice.

About a month later, the man and three other individuals were arrested and charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near a school grounds. In is alleged that the man have handed a bag of heroin to an undercover police officer in exchange for money. It is also alleged that several accomplices directed the undercover officer to the man, one told the officer to try the car to see if the man was there.

Several months after being arraigned, the man applied for judicial diversion. The man was first screened for possible consideration by an addiction and substance abuse counselor. The man told the counselor that he has a 20 year history of weekend binges of alcohol consumption, and has been an intermittent user of cocaine. The counselor recommended that the man be evaluated for potential placement in drug and/or alcohol treatment.

Published on: March 17, 2014

Family Court Act §1051 (c

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Criminal case, the question presented is whether a positive toxicology for marijuana and a respondent mother’s admission to prior marijuana use are sufficient to establish neglect pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1012 (f) (i) (B) or § 1046 (a) (iii). The Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter, “ACS”) contends that they are. ACS asserts that the mother’s repeated use of marijuana establishes a prima facie case of parental culpability and that a prima facie case is not rebutted by a showing that the children were never harmed or in danger of harm and were always healthy, well kept, clean and well fed. According to ACS, dismissal of the petition based on its failure to present any specific evidence of actual impairment or imminent danger of such impairment would constitute error as a matter of law.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that Respondent mother contends that a newborn’s positive toxicology for marijuana alone is insufficient to support a finding of neglect because the test result, in and of itself, does not prove that the child was physically, mentally or emotionally impaired, or in imminent danger of being impaired. She contends that relying solely on a positive toxicology for a neglect determination fails to make the necessary causative connection to all the surrounding circumstances that may or may not produce impairment or imminent risk of impairment in the newborn child.

Additionally, respondent mother asserts that the record is insufficient to establish a prima facie case since no evidence was elicited establishing the quantity, frequency or effect of marijuana use upon her or her ability to care for her children. She emphasizes that she never used or was under the influence and criminal marijuana possession or any other drug while in the presence of any of her children. She underscores that the older children were in the care of the maternal grandmother during these occasions.