New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: September 22, 2013

This court is called upon inter alia to make certain decisions based upon a dispute involving allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

A Kings Domestic Violence Lawyer said that, this court is called upon inter alia to make certain decisions based upon a dispute involving allegations that a mother, through her actions, actively and passively alienated and influenced a child to the point that the child may no longer have any inclination or desire to see her father again. As equally important, the court must also determine the credibility of claims of egregious domestic violence during a long-term marriage of 31 years alleged to have been perpetrated against the mother, herself an advocate for the rights of women in divorce actions.

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, the parties were married in August 1973. The wife is presently 52 years of age and the husband is presently 56 years of age. On the date of their marriage, plaintiff was 22 years of age and a college graduate. Defendant was then 18 years of age and a high school graduate. During the course of the marriage, four children were born to the parties, to wit: the eldest daughter, age 32; the eldest son, age 26; the youngest son, age 20; and the youngest daughter, age 13. The two youngest children, the youngest son (presently age 20) and the youngest daughter (presently age 13), remain unemancipated. During the course of the litigation the youngest son resided in Israel or was a resident student at a university. It appears the youngest son is fully and voluntarily supported by the father and does not permanently reside with either party, although he does reside with the mother during the summer recess from school.

A Kings Order of Protection Lawyer said that, the husband commenced this action in December 2004 after the wife withdrew an action commenced in November 2004. The parties litigated in Family Court from November 10, 2004, through January 31, 2005. The husband also brought a writ of habeas corpus under a separate index number against the wife and her mother which was dismissed. The Family Court action was consolidated into the Supreme Court action, on consent. The husband was granted a divorce, on consent, after proof, on June 10, 2005, on the grounds of constructive abandonment and shortly thereafter the husband gave the wife a Jewish divorce (get). A law guardian, was appointed for the youngest daughter, and a neutral forensic evaluator, was appointed by the court.

Published on: September 21, 2013

In a 1986 case decision, the defendant was charged with the sale and possession of marijuana.

by Stephen Bilkis

A Kings Drug Possession Lawyer said that, defendant is charged with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, a class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the Criminal Court complaint, a paralegal with the Kings County District Attorney’s Office states that she is informed by Police Officer that on or about April 19, 2009, at 7:32 P.M. at 390 Nostrand Avenue, County of Kings, City and State of New York, defendant was in possession of crack cocaine. The Criminal Court complaint cites the police officer’s “professional training” in the “identification of crack cocaine possession,” and notes that the officer “has previously made arrests for the criminal possession of crack cocaine,” and “is familiar with the common methods of packaging crack cocaine possession.”

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was arraigned before this court on April 28, 2009. At that time, the People filed a supporting deposition signed by the Police Officer, which identified the contraband seized as a “glass pipe containing crack cocaine residue.”1 The People then asked that the complaint be deemed an information. The defense objected, on the grounds that in the absence of a laboratory analysis of the substance recovered, there is no reasonable or probable cause “to believe that the substance involved is a controlled substance.” The court asked the parties to brief this issue, before determining whether or not a laboratory analysis would be necessary before the complaint could be deemed an information. The defense submitted their memorandum of law on May 7, 2009; the People filed theirs on May 20, 2009.

A Kings Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, on June 1, 2009, the People filed a statement of readiness with a certified laboratory analysis attached, which indicates that the substance recovered is, in fact, cocaine residue.

Published on: September 20, 2013

On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient

by Stephen Bilkis

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the County Family Court which adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months with credit for time spent in detention.

The Criminal Court found that the appellant, who, at the club where she worked as a dancer, allegedly agreed to perform oral sex on an undercover police officer, committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of prostitution.

On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the fact-finding and that the fact-finding is against the weight of the evidence. The evidence supporting a fact-finding in a juvenile delinquency proceeding is legally sufficient if, viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, any rational trier of fact could have found the appellant’s commission of all the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the elements of prostitution.

Published on: September 20, 2013

A police officer may frisk a detainee if the officer reasonably suspects that he or she is in danger of physical injury

by Stephen Bilkis

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and/or CPLR 3212, the defendants, by notice of motion dated 15 November 2010, move for an order dismissing plaintiff’s claims against them. This motion is opposed by the plaintiff.

On 21 May 2008, MM and JC, NYPD officers assigned to the prisoner van component of a Street Narcotics unit, were driving in the vicinity of West 121st Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan when they saw plaintiff with another individual at the northeast corner. As the two walked north on Eighth Avenue towards West 122nd Street, the officers observed plaintiff twice adjust the right side of his waistband. They thus decided to follow the men as they walked around the block to West 121st Street and Seventh Avenue. Deeming plaintiff’s conduct as indicative of his possession of a firearm, and given what they characterized as a circuitous route the two took in a high- crime area, they decided to stop them.

The officers approached the two and ordered them to stop. MM approached plaintiff’s companion to question him, turning his back to plaintiff, while JC approached plaintiff, frisked him, and removed from his right pants pocket a firearm. MM and JC then arrested plaintiff for criminal possession of a weapon.

Published on: September 19, 2013

The defendant’s remaining claims are not preserved

by Stephen Bilkis

The criminal defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of sex abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, both charges arising out of a single incident that allegedly occurred when the defendant took the complaining witness to see a movie.

As a preliminary matter, the County court reject the argument that the pertinent claims of prosecutorial misconduct are not preserved for appellate review. Under the particular circumstances, the defense counsel’s general objections to the prosecutor’s comments, and subsequent motion for a mistrial, preserved the claims.

With respect to the merits of the defendant’s claims, while the prosecutor has wide latitude to comment upon every pertinent matter of fact bearing upon the questions the jury have to decide, such latitude does not permit an unbridled debate in which the restraints imposed at trial are cast aside so that counsel may employ all rhetorical devices at his command. There are certain well-defined limits. Moreover, the fundamental obligation of a prosecutor is to seek justice, and not merely obtain a conviction.

Published on: September 19, 2013

This case was adjourned for conversion.

by Stephen Bilkis

In January 2011, the defendant was arraigned and charged with one count each of: Assault In The Third Degree, Criminal Obstruction Of Breathing Or Blood Circulation, Attempted Assault In The Third Degree, and Harassment In The Second Degree

A Kings County Criminal lawyer said that at arraignment, since the People did not have the supporting deposition of the complainant, the court deemed that the accusatory instrument had not been converted into an information. Accordingly, the case was adjourned for conversion.

Off calendar, the People served and filed a superseding information charging the defendant with one count each of attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, and harassment in the second degree.

Published on: September 19, 2013

People offered the testimony of two witnesses

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant is charged with Attempted Resisting Arrest and Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the Fifth Degree, both Class B Misdemeanors, as well as Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, a violation.

On the consent of the People and pursuant to People v Dunaway, Mapp v Ohio and People v Huntley, a hearing was held in this matter on 19 October 2012.

At the hearing, the People offered the testimony of two witnesses: Sergeant and Police Officer. The defense offered the testimony of one witness, A.

Published on: September 18, 2013

In this domestic violence prosecution, defendant stands indicted for burglary, assault and criminal contempt

by Stephen Bilkis

In this domestic violence prosecution, defendant stands indicted for, among other things, burglary, assault and criminal contempt involving alleged assaults on his girlfriend at her home in violation of an order of protection.

The People now allege that the complainant has had a change of heart and is refusing to cooperate with the prosecution as a result of over 300 telephone calls placed to her by the defendant from jail. Because of this the People move to introduce the complainant’s grand jury testimony on their direct case. A hearing was held in order to determine whether such an order is warranted.

The Constitution guarantees to every citizen accused of crimes, the right to confront the witnesses against him, which of necessity, includes the right to cross-examination. In fact, cross-examination has been described as “the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested”, and that restrictions on the right to cross-examine “can deprive a defendant of an important means of combating inculpatory testimony or at least demonstrating the existence of reasonable doubt as to guilt.

Published on: September 18, 2013

The petitions alleged that the mother failed to provide her children with proper supervision

by Stephen Bilkis

An institution filed an appeal against a mother alleging that her six children were suspected neglected. At that time, the youngest child was a new-born and the oldest child was 16 years old.

The petitions alleged that the mother failed to provide her children with proper supervision and guardianship. Specifically, the petitions alleged that the school-age children were not enrolled in school. Additionally, the petitions alleged that the mother misused marijuana and then gave birth to a baby with a positive toxicology for marijuana.

Subsequently, a fact-finding hearing was conducted. The institution called two witnesses on their direct case, the caseworker and the mother.

Published on: September 18, 2013

The People argue that the defendant by running away from the Sergeant created probable cause to arrest for resisting arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant is charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and disorderly conduct.

On 26 July 2007, a Mapp-Huntley was held before this court. At this hearing Sgt. KK and the defendant, JE, testified. The court finds incredible. At the end of the hearing, both parties requested additional time to submit post-hearing memoranda of law, which they both did.

On 21 December 2006, at around 8:00 to 8:20 pm, a group of five or six individuals, including the defendant, were gathered in front of 85-02 Rockaway Beach Boulevard, which is part of a public housing complex referred to as the Hamel Houses. They were blocking the pedestrian walkway going into the building. The Sergeant, in an unmarked car with two other officers, pulled over, turned on the red bubble lights, and the Sergeant, with his shield out, told them to leave the area. They nodded and started to walk away in apparent compliance with the Sergeant’s directive. Upon seeing this group walk away, the police left the scene.