New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Defendant was indicted for two counts of first degree rape, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and one count of unlawfully dealing with a child pornography, and defendant moved to suppress a statement he made to Sheriff’s Department Investigator and a letter he wrote to the victim. A hearing was held thereafter.

A Nassau County Criminal attorney said that in June 2006, an Investigator was contacted at home and asked to go to a General Hospital to begin a rape investigation. After speaking with the victim, he went to defendant’s residence and asked if he would talk with the detective about the incident. Because there were other people present in defendant’s home, the investigator and defendant went to a restaurant in Olean. Defendant rode in the front of the car, uncuffed and unshackled. At the restaurant, they spoke about the incident and investigator took down the information on his laptop. Before they left, Investigator told defendant not to have any contact with the victim but if defendant wanted to write the victim, the Investigator would insure that she received whatever defendant wrote. Defendant then wrote a note to the victim and gave it to the Investigator.

After the hearing, the court denied the motion to suppress the statements and scheduled a trial. Defendant has since served notice that he intends to call as a witness who will testify that defendant’s statement is false “in whole or part,” and that the investigator’s techniques and methods were “defective” and “likely to produce inaccurate statements.” Significantly, there was very little cross-examination at the hearing about any techniques or methods employed by Investigator. The District Attorney has now moved to preclude the witness’ testimony on the grounds that it has not gained general acceptance in the scientific community, is irrelevant, and would usurp the jury’s fact finding function.

Continue reading

In this Criminal case, the Court is unanimous in its determination that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to this case and, therefore, the court discussed only the arguments advanced in the dissent.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that the dissent contends that the Trial Court erred in refusing to admit into evidence a certain paper, claimed to be a report of the accident, written out by the witness after a conversation with a fellow-employee. The latter was not produced by the defendant at the trial and his address is claimed to be unknown to the defendant. It is conceded witness did not see the accident.

It is clear from the record of this trial that the paper does not qualify as a record made and kept in the regular course of business, as contemplated by CPLR § 4518(a). After having asked the witness the question as to whether this paper was kept in the regular course of business, to which there was no answer, trial counsel for the defendant made no further effort in this regard and, as a result, there was a complete failure to establish the necessary foundation, as required by the section. Its exclusion was proper. There was no arson involved and also no assault in the case.

Continue reading

Bronx Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of six counts of sodomy in the first degree , one count of attempted sodomy in the first degree , two counts of sodomy in the second degree , and one count of sex abuse in the first degree , pursuant to the Sexual Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA), the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommends designating defendant as a risk level three sexually violent offender upon his release from custody. Although conceding that his total risk factor score is correct, defendant argues at a risk assessment hearing that the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to a risk level two.

A Bronx Sex Crime Lawyer said that, on October 23, 2003, the Board submitted a risk assessment instrument. It recommends designating defendant as a sexually violent offender based on his convictions for sodomy in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and sex abuse in the first degree. It also recommends classifying defendant as a risk level three based on an assessed score of 165. Specifically, the Board assessed: 10 points for use of forcible compulsion; 25 points for sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse or aggravated sexual abuse with the victim; 30 points for three or more victims; 20 points for engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct; 20 points for the age of the victims being between 11 and 16; 10 points for defendant being 20 years of age or less at the time of his first act of sexual misconduct; 30 points for a criminal history consisting of a prior violent felony, misdemeanor sex crime or endangering the welfare of a child; 10 points for the prior felony or sex crime occurring less than three years before the current incidents; and 10 points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined or supervised.

The Board then compiled a case summary “based upon a review of the inmate’s file which includes but is not limited to the pre-sentence investigation, prior criminal history and post-offense behavior”. This summary stated, in pertinent part, that: “In 1986, defendant was adjudicated a Youthful Offender for Criminal Possession of a Loaded Firearm, a sawed off rifle, and Theft of Services. As a result, he was placed on five years probation. While on probation for that offense, he was arrested for the instant sex offense for which he was convicted after trial. Regarding the sex offenses, [defendant], who was nineteen years old at the time, sodomized and sexually abused five young, runaway, boys who were between the ages of eleven and fifteen.

Continue reading

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered 1 February 1971, which convicted him, upon a jury verdict, of the crime of rape and sexual abuse, both in the first degree, and imposed appropriate sentences.

The court reverses the judgment, on the law, and remands the case to the Nassau County Court for a new trial not inconsistent with this memorandum.

At the trial, the County Court permitted RC to testify that he was a probation officer over defense counsel’s vigorous objection and demand for a mistrial. Thereafter, RC stated that defendant came to his office and told him that he was wanted by the police for his alleged commission of an act of rape upon the complainant and that he had, in fact, engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant. There was no domestic violence.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, the Court ordered that the petitioners be subject to all of the required procedures under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law which had become effective on April 13th, 2007, after the petitions had been filed but prior to the time the Court of Appeals decide. The Court noted that although Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law was enacted subsequent to the placement of the respondents at the Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center under Article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law, the respondents were explicitly designated as subject to Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law by the terms of the statute.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the State commenced each of the actions at issue here in New York County more than 2 ½ years ago, initially, pursuant to Article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law and later under Article 10. Respondents have been confined in New York County where the cases have continued to be venue since that time. Prior to moving to change venue in these motions in April of this year, no motions for a change of venue had been made by either the State or the Respondents in these cases. A trial date has not yet been set in any of these actions.

The issue in this case is whether the motion to change the venue of the case should be granted. No drug possession was involved.

Respondents in these cases are the subjects of sex crimes offender civil management petitions pursuant to Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law. On April 17th, April 21st and April 28th 2008, the State moved to transfer the venue of these proceedings from New York County, where they are currently located, to the jurisdictions where the crimes committed by the offenders in these cases occurred. Although each of these motions was brought separately and these cases have not been formally consolidated, the legal issues, procedural history, counsels for the parties and many of the factual issues in these motions overlap.

Respondent was convicted of one count of Sex Abuse in the Third Degree in 1980, one count of Sex Abuse in the First Degree in 1984 and Sodomy in the First Degree in 1993. He was sentenced on the latter conviction to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 6-12 years. Respondent was conditionally released in October of 2001 but violated his parole by possessing pornography. He was then re-incarcerated and subsequently transferred to the Manhattan Psychiatric Center, as noted above, at the completion of his sentence in 2005.

These cases all arose pursuant to a unique procedural history. In the fall of 2005, after failing to achieve passage of legislation to provide for the civil commitment of convicted sex offenders for a number of years, the Governor charged state officials to “push the envelope” and use the provisions of the existing Mental Hygiene Law to civilly confine convicted sex crime offenders whose prison terms were ending. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, twelve convicted sex crime offenders were confined at the conclusion of their prison terms at the Manhattan Psychiatric Center between September 23 and October 21, 2005 pursuant to this directive. The Governor relied upon M.H.L. § 9.27(a) for these actions, which authorizes the involuntary confinement of persons who are mentally ill, in need of involuntary care and treatment and pose a danger to themselves or society. Some of these first twelve offenders were later transferred to the Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center also located in New York County.

The respondent, before the court for a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), moves for an order rejecting the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (the Board) that the respondent be designated a risk level three. The respondent further seeks an order holding that he is not required to register as a sex offender.

A New York Sex crimes attorney said that in November 1988, the respondent was arrested in Kings County and subsequently indicted for robbery in the first degree and related offenses. Thereafter, he entered a plea of guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Kings County warrant, the respondent was arrested in North Carolina and charged with having sexual contact with four children. Later, following a three-day trial, he was convicted of one count of first degree sex offense and related charges and was sentenced to life in prison.

A New York Prostitution Lawyer said that, this is a multiple non-payment proceeding instituted by the owner of a high-rise dwelling which contains 350 apartments to recover possession of the several apartments. Eighty-four separate proceedings were brought and it was stipulated by the parties that the special referee may try all of them together and that the evidence be applied to each proceeding, and that the referee may render a separate judgment in each proceeding.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the tenants appearing by the same attorneys interposed three defenses, but at the hearing two of them were withdrawn and the only defense relied upon is defense of un-inhabitability and Sec. 755 Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, as set forth in paragraph 2 of the answer, in that the premises are not habitable because the petitioner knew or should have known for a long time prior to the commencement of these proceedings that its premises were and are being used for immoral purposes, thus interfering greatly with the quiet enjoyment of the premises by the respondents.

A New York Patronizing Prostitution Lawyer said that, from the evidence it appears that prior to the institution of these proceedings many of the tenants formed the Westerly Tenants’ Association and this Association met with the landlord and his attorneys, at which time the tenants presented complaints relating to unlawful activities by alleged prostitutes and procurers and the existence of so-called massage parlors in the building. The tenants were informed by the landlord’s attorneys that necessary steps would be taken to remove any undesirables from the premises and to seek to oust them, but it had to be done legally. Requests were made for rent, which the tenants refused to pay. Whereupon, the petitioner-landlord instituted these proceedings. The rentals are on the average of $350 per apartment per month, and some of these apartments rent for about $600 per month. At the outset, about 110 tenants refused to pay their rents to the landlord. Presently, 84 tenants have not paid their monthly rentals for a period of two months. There was no burglary.

Continue reading

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant was charged in two separate counts with committing sodomy upon A, age 14, and B, age 16. He was also charged in a third count with a violation of section 483, Penal Law, impairing the morals of the younger complainant A. The case was tried without a jury.

The court finds that with regard to all three crimes charged, the evidence establishes that the complainants not only consented to but actually solicited the acts. The complainants clearly would be accomplices in fact if under the controlling statutes based on Sodomy, Penal Law, § 690 and Impairing, Penal Law, § 483. They can also be accomplices as a matter of law.

This is one of the issues before the court. If they are accomplices as a matter of law, their testimony must be corroborated under Code of Criminal Procedure, § 399. Another issue presented is the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence.

Continue reading

This is an action for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff, when he was under arrest on two separate occasions. According to the City’s papers for the instant motion, the first arrest was based on allegations of sexual assault made by a foster child who used to live next door to Plaintiff. In July 31, 2004, two police officers and a worker from Children’s Services arrived at Plaintiff’s apartment and questioned Plaintiff’s three daughters regarding said allegations. It is Plaintiff’s position that one of his daughters told the officers that the allegations were untrue. That day, Plaintiff was arrested and arraigned on charges of forcible touching and endangering the welfare of a minor. A Grand Jury indicted Plaintiff in September 2004. Plaintiff had a trial on these criminal charges and was acquitted in May 2006.

A Nassau Sex Crimes attorney said that in December 2005, Plaintiff was again arrested. However, this time, the complaining witness was Plaintiff’s daughter. According to the testimony of a Detective, in November 2005, the police received a report from the Children Services sent from a Hospital that the daughter claimed Plaintiff sexually abused her. Thereafter, Detective met with the daughter who told him that she was raped by Plaintiff in November 2005, and over a period of time since she was ten years old. At the time of the complaint, she was fifteen years old. That same day, the Detective set up a meeting for the daughter to speak to the District Attorney’s Office (“DA’s Office”) who thereafter approved Plaintiff’s arrest.

Thereafter, Plaintiff testified before a Grand Jury. In December 2005, he was indicted on charges of rape, sexual conduct and endangering the welfare of a minor. Plaintiff had a trial by jury on these charges and was acquitted in November 2006.

Continue reading