New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: January 25, 2014

New York State Police officers executed the warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Criminal case, Defendant has been convicted, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. On this appeal he challenges on several grounds the validity of a search warrant authorizing the search of his house and the seizure of various items of physical evidence, including approximately two pounds of cocaine found during the course of the search.

While investigating a drug ring involving the importation and distribution of cocaine in the Finger Lakes region, the State Police obtained authorization to place a wiretap on the phone of a known cocaine distributor operating at the middle level of the local drug distribution chain. By means of the wiretap, they intercepted coded conversations between the distributor and defendant suggestive of drug activity. Consequently, in June 1984 the Ontario County District Attorney sought an eavesdropping warrant for defendant’s telephone.

The application in support of the eavesdropping warrant included an affidavit from State Police Investigator who was the director of the area-wide drug investigation and an officer with substantial experience in drug enforcement. In his affidavit he summarized the results of the investigation and he attached to it several exhibits, including the results of a pen register surveillance which showed that over 2,000 telephone calls of short duration had been placed to and from defendant’s residence over a one-month period of time.

Published on: January 25, 2014

The United States Supreme Court

by Stephen Bilkis

In August1995, after a jury trial, defendant was convicted of committing the crimes of Kidnapping in the First and Second Degrees and Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree. Thereafter, he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from fifteen years to life on the top count and to concurrent terms of incarceration on the lesser crimes.

A Queens County Criminal attorney said that in January 1995, defendant forced the complaining witness, from her home by threatening to kill her. Thereafter, he restrained her with an extension cord, gagged her mouth with a sock and placed her in his car. Co-defendant joined them sometime later and pointed a gun at the complaining witness. Together they took her to Forest Park, located in Queens County, where they used duct tape to tie her to a park bench. Subsequently, they placed her back in the car and drove to a telephone from which they called the victim’s mother in an effort to extract a ransom from her. When her mother agreed to pay it, the victim was released. Evidence against the defendant included a post-arrest videotaped statement wherein he admitted to certain of the acts underlying the charges and a tape recording of the ransom demand made during the conversation with the victim’s mother.

Almost eight years after his conviction of the crime of Kidnapping in the First Degree was affirmed by the Appellate Division and his application for leave to appeal the criminal conviction to the Court of Appeals was denied, defendant now moves to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10 on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that he rejected the plea offer because his lawyer advised him that he would only be convicted of a misdemeanor, exposing him to a maximum sentence of one year.

Published on: January 23, 2014

Some cases have held that a laboratory report is not required

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant stands accused of the crime of Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the Fourth Degree. He moves to dismiss the charge pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30 on the ground that the People failed to file a laboratory report confirming the presence of marijuana within 90 days of the commencement of the action thereby denying defendant a speedy trial. C.P.L. § 30.30(1)(b). The People, although conceding the report was not filed within 90 days, contend that a laboratory report is not required in marijuana cases.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that Defendant was arrested in July 1987. He was initially charged with four crimes, including possession of cocaine, hypodermic instruments and marijuana possession as well as the charge of criminal sale of marijuana in issue here. A laboratory report pertaining to the other drug possession charges was filed and served in July 1987. However, as a result of the granting of a motion after a suppression hearing, those other charges were dismissed. It was not until that date, 194 days after the commencement of the action–that the People filed the laboratory report for the one remaining count.

Defendant then filed his speedy trial motion now before the court.

Published on: January 22, 2014

People v. Holmes

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. Holmes

Court Discusses the Creditably and Reliability of Information Received by Informant

The defendant was arrested after a registered informer, told the police that a man fitting his description was selling cocaine in front of a bar in Manhattan. The informer stated the clothing that was being worn by the defendant, age group, his race and where he stored the cocaine in his clothing. Two police officers searched the defendant who matched the description of the informer and they found 19 tinfoil packets of cocaine. The defendant was charged with attempted criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the 4th degree and was convicted of the charge. The defendant was sentence to a term of one year imprisonment and later appealed the conviction. The ground of appeal was that there was no probable cause for the warrantless search by the police officers as such the cocaine found on the defendant’s person should have been suppressed.

Published on: January 22, 2014

The officer then stopped the defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a Criminal case wherein defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained on the search of his person and arrest as well as from the conviction after trial.

A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that in March 1966, in the early evening, a Patrolman was on foot patrol in uniform on a busy thoroughfare in Queens County. A passerby told him of an occurrence, involving a man with a weapon, as a result of which the officer proceeded to a nearby intersection and then to two stores, a dairy and a bar. Patrons in the bar told him that a man outside the bar had discharged a pistol or firecrackers.

The bar patrons had described the man with the gun as five foot, six or seven, blonde, and wearing a blue or dark jacket. Outside the bar another passerby pointed to defendant and stated that he was the man with the gun. Defendant fitted the description previously given to the officer.

Published on: January 21, 2014

The man’s last witness was his psychiatrist

by Stephen Bilkis

A man has been released from prison after serving two consecutive sentences of 3 1/3 to 10 years following his conviction for rape and robbery. At the age of fifteen, he was convicted of being one of a large group of youths who committed a series of violent assaults, including a brutal gang rape of a female jogger.

The man is presently challenging a recommendation to the court that he be assessed a risk level three, which requires the highest level of notification.

In addition to the man’s numerous written submissions, six witnesses testified on behalf of the man.

Published on: January 20, 2014

Officer testified that the second car was stopped

by Stephen Bilkis

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, on the evening of September 24, 1971, New York City Officers Santiago and Braga were assigned to a taxi and truck surveillance unit. At about 8:00 p.m., they stopped a 1963 or 1965 blue Buick Riviera with Queens County license plates on Morningside Drive and 122nd Street. Two black men were in the car. Following a check of the license and registration, the car was permitted to proceed. At about 10:00 p.m., the officers saw a 1963 or 1965 blue Buick Riviera approaching the Triborough Bridge. This car, which appeared to the officers to be identical to the first car, had Brooklyn license plates and three black male occupants. As a result of seeing two apparently identical cars within two hours with different plates, the officers stopped the second car. The criminal occupants exited from the vehicle. Upon examining the driver’s license and registration, the officers ascertained that the car did not belong to him. Hence, the Officer proceeded to check the VIN plate on the hinge of the driver’s front door. While he was in a crouched position searching for the VIN plate, the other Officer observed the back seat passenger approach the open door and reach over his partner’s shoulder into the car. He believing that there might be a gun in the car, grabbed the man and shined his flash-light inside the car. An open manila envelope containing a visible white powder was resting on the console. Santiago testified that he had made about 80 prior arrests involving cocaine and heroin and, based on his experience, he believed the white powder to be cocaine. All three occupants of the car, including the defendant, were arrested, and a further search revealed another identical envelope, containing white powder, between the driver’s seat and the console.

A Queens Criminal Gun Crime Lawyer said that, defendant, as well as the other occupants of the car, were subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree. After a hearing on defendant’s suppression motion, the court, apparently assuming that the officers had an unqualified right to stop the automobile, found the officer’s testimony credible and concluded that there were reasonable grounds to look inside the automobile prior to the discovery of the drugs. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the crime charged in the indictment. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction.

The issue in this case is whether a police officer’s suspicion of criminal activity justifies stopping a motor vehicle for an investigative check.

Published on: January 19, 2014

CPLR 1311

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an action for a forfeiture claim. In essence, plaintiff alleges that the non criminal defendants are dentists who billed the state program for unauthorized dental services provided by the criminal defendant and companies he is alleged to have controlled.

A Queens County Criminal attorney said that the forfeiture action was commenced by order to show cause in May 2005, at which time the court granted plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order attaching the personal and real property of the criminal defendant and the non-criminal defendants, and restrained all defendants and all persons and entities having knowledge of the order from removing from the State, transferring, assigning, disposing of, encumbering or secreting such property. Defendants appeared by counsel and the court approved a stipulation modifying the temporary restraining order, and permitted the release of funds from certain accounts held by the non-criminal defendants, including the release of approximately $7,000.00, to be used for living, business and legal expenses.

Thereafter, the court approved a stipulation and order further modifying the temporary restraining order, and permitted the release of additional funds from certain accounts held by certain defendants, including $23,187.37 to be used for living, business and legal expenses. In July 2005 the Attorney General and non-criminal defendants individually and on behalf of his interests entered into a Stipulated Preliminary Injunction. These defendants also executed an Affidavit of Confession of Judgment in favor of the State of New York to secure plaintiff’s interest in real property owned by these defendants, and agreed to plaintiff’s filing of judgments in the counties where they possess real property and the filing of notices of pendency against several of the real properties.

Published on: January 19, 2014

Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding wherein the plaintiff, NS Auto & Towing, by order to show cause dated 23 April 2007, sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants, Nassau County and Nassau County Police Department from terminating its towing and impound contract.

On 11 and 12 of June 2007, the issues were set down and witnesses were presented. The plaintiff presented the testimony of Detective SS who submitted an affidavit in opposition to their motion and RS, the mayor of the Incorporated Village of Thomaston. On the other hand, the defendants called NS’s principal, SRB, Sgt. IS of the NCPD Legal Bureau and Sgt. RJ, the administrative supervisor of the Sixth Precinct.

Prior to the hearing, an issue arose with regard to documents subpoenaed by NS. Nassau County argued that the subpoena should be quashed because much of the material sought was necessary for an on-going grand jury investigation of NS. In support, an assistant district attorney appeared to urge that the information sought, if disclosed, would negatively impact the work of the grand jury.

Published on: January 18, 2014

Pursuant to Penal Law § 30.00 (1)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involving child sexual abuse committed by an adolescent raises issues of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to resolve by guilty plea charges involving a continuous offense spanning defendant’s infancy and adulthood, charges underlying a juvenile delinquency finding, and charges for which defendant may be prosecuted as an adult.

A New York Criminal attorney said that defendant was charged in a six-count indictment with one count of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, four counts of sodomy in the first degree, and one count of endangering the welfare of a child. The charges arose from incidents commencing when defendant was 13 years old and the victim was four years old, and continuing until defendant was 17 years old and the victim was seven years old. During those years, the victim was regularly brought to defendant’s home for babysitting by defendant’s mother. The incidents occurred when defendant’s mother left the victim in defendant’s sole care while she left the house to run errands.

Defendant fully allocuted to each count in the indictment, acknowledged his guilt and indicated his awareness of the consequences of his plea. The court made no promise with respect to the sentence, but agreed to consider granting defendant youthful offender status. Although no mention of the People’s position on youthful offender status was placed on the record at that time, during an off-record, chambers conference with the court and defense counsel earlier that day, the Assistant District Attorney had suggested that, if defendant had himself been a victim of prior sexual abuse, the People would likely not oppose a finding that defendant receive youthful offender treatment. Pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, at the time his plea was entered, defendant was certified as a sex offender.