New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: August 18, 2013

The court suggested the district attorney that he brings the case of the man to the attention of the governor.

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was convicted of the crimes of criminal forgery in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree. He was sentenced to prison for concurrent terms of two and one-half to five years for each conviction. He then filed a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The instant application, made within one day before the expiration of the one-year legal period of limitation after the imposition of the decision, is founded upon documentary proof consisting of official records of the army. The records establish that the date of the crimes for which he stands convicted and sentenced, the man was under detention in the post stockade. The records state that the man was in confinement for awaiting trial and under sentence of a court-martial and was released from confinement and discharged from service, under conditions other than honorable.

The army documents were submitted in evidence at the man’s hearing in support of his application for a new trial. It appears from the court records that the man was indicted for forgery in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree, arising from his alleged endorsement and uttering a state war bond valued at $150 and made to the order of another person. But, the man was not in the custody of the county’s authorities at the time of his indictment and he did not plead to the accusation. He also furnished bail in the sum of $1,000 and was released from confinement.

Published on: August 18, 2013

The court holds that the resolution of this issue requires an interpretation of such in CPL § 170.56 subd. 1(a)

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding wherein the issue presented is whether or not a defendant may be granted an Adjournment in Contemplation under Criminal Procedure Law § 170.56, without the District Attorney’s consent, where the defendant has been granted a prior ACD under CPL § 170.55.

The court holds that the resolution of this issue requires an interpretation of such in CPL § 170.56 subd. 1(a), a construction heretofore unreported.

On 19 March 1979, the defendant was arrested for a criminal sale and possession of marijuana and resisting arrest. With the consent of the District Attorney’s office, all charges were ACD’ed pursuant to CPL § 170.55.

Published on: August 17, 2013

As the man properly admitted, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that he stole money by false pretenses

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal was filed from a judgment convicting a man of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree. The man contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and it is against the weight of the evidence.

Based on records, the man’s argument concerning the legal insufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for the court’s review. Nevertheless, the court exercises their power to address the said argument as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction.

Subsequently, the man was charged in count one of the indictment with stealing of money from a trust, and he was charged in criminal count two with stealing of money directly from an elderly woman who was the beneficiary of the trust.

Published on: August 17, 2013

Petitioner, therefore, seeks from this court a ruling De novo on the issue as to whether his wearing clerical garb would prevent a fair trial of the indictment herein.

by Stephen Bilkis

A Kings Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, petitioner an attorney admitted to the Bar in the State of New York and employed by the Legal Aid Society, Criminal Defense Division, since 1973, and a Roman Catholic priest, seeks permission of this court to continue to wear his clerical collar while representing defendant, as her attorney, upon the trial of an indictment charging defendant with Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the Third Degree.

A Kings Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the District Attorney of the County of Kings has entered an objection to the wearing of clerical garb by the Reverend petitioner at trial the thrust of which is that a fair trial cannot be secured herein if he were to proceed to trial wearing clerical garb because of the likelihood that prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable, in the minds of the potential jurors would override their ability to be objective and impartial, and cites as authority for his posture the 1976 case decision, which upheld the prohibition by the trial judge in that case against petitioner’s appearance at trial wearing clerical garb while representing the defendant.

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, the previous adjudication by the Court of Appeals of this state of the identical issue presented to this court arose through the vehicle of an Article 78 C.P.L.R. proceeding brought by petitioner to prohibit a Criminal Court judge from ordering him to remove his clerical collar prior to continuing as defense counsel in the trial of an action in Kings County Criminal Court. The issue reached the Court of Appeals pursuant to C.P.L.R., Section 5601(a) i & ii, (b), appealing an order and judgment of the Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissing the petition of petitioner-appellant.

Published on: August 16, 2013

It is well established that the mere filing of papers

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 9, 1988, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree (five counts), grand larceny in the third degree (six counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. A New York Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, the defendant’s convictions of grand larceny and scheme to defraud arose out of the Attorney-General’s investigation of his automobile lease brokerage business which specialized in negotiating credit for individuals with bad credit histories and arranging for them to lease or purchase new and used automobiles. At the trial, 11 consumers, who responded to the defendant’s newspaper advertisements, testified that during 1986 they made substantial payments to the defendant and, despite the defendant’s repeated assurances, they neither received a car nor had their money refunded.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, on appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence a bank letter addressed to the court-appointed receiver of the defendant’s business which indicated the balance of the defendant’s business account.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence a bank letter addressed to the court-appointed receiver of the defendant’s business which indicated the balance of the defendant’s business account.

Published on: August 16, 2013

The owner of the car originally testified that he saw the attacker holding a gun

by Stephen Bilkis

Two men, including the owner, were sitting in a car in the garage when someone approached from behind and ordered them to get out and not to turn around.

The owner of the car originally testified that he saw the attacker holding a gun, but he indicated that he had not looked the attacker’s hand. The owner stated that he comply the attacker’s command and stepped out of his car. He then saw the car being driven away. But, he was unable to make an identification of the attacker.

On the same morning, one detective was performing a tour of duty with two colleagues. They were working in civilian clothes and operating out of an unmarked detective cruiser. At around 1:30 a.m., they received a radio alarm for the alleged robbery and DWI. The report asserted that the car was being operated by a black male, approximately 23 years old, wearing a full length grayish coat and armed with a hand gun.

Published on: August 15, 2013

At common law, the crime of larceny contained an element of asportation or carrying away

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, transit Police Officer testified that he observed the defendant while riding on the subway, unzip the handbag of the complainant, place his hand inside her handbag, and begin to lift a red change purse. At that time, the complainant, grabbed her pocketbook, and pulled away from the defendant. The defendant moved to another car on the train and the complainant told the transit police that someone had tried to steal her purse. Minutes later the defendant was arrested.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defense contends that, viewing the evidence even in the light most favorable to the People, the charge submitted to the jury should be one of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree rather than grand larceny in the fourth degree.

The issue in this case is whether a defendant who places his hand in a woman’s handbag and starts to lift up a change purse be charged with grand larceny in the fourth degree when he never actually removes the change purse from the handbag? Or is the crime no more than an attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree?

Published on: August 15, 2013

The court have considered the defendant’s remaining points

by Stephen Bilkis

Judgment by the Bronx County Supreme Court convicting the defendant after trial to a jury of robbery in the first and second degrees, grand larceny in the third degree and possession of a weapon as a misdemeanor, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 12 years on each of the robbery counts, four years on the grand larceny count and a conditional discharge on the weapons count, unanimously modified on the law, to the extent of reversing the conviction on the grand larceny count and dismissing that count of the indictment and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant could not have committed robbery without having also committed larceny; the larceny offense was, therefore, an inclusory concurrent lesser count included within the greater crime of robbery.

Prior to trial, a hearing was held pursuant to Article 670 of the CPL to determine whether the victim of the criminal act was unable to testify at the trial by reason of illness. Under circumstances prescribed in this article, testimony given by a witness at a trial of an accusatory instrument, or a hearing upon a felony complaint, or an examination of such witness conditionally, may, where otherwise admissible, be received into evidence at a subsequent proceeding in or relating to the action involved when at the time of such subsequent proceeding the witness is unable to attend the same by reason of death, illness or incapacity, or cannot with due diligence be found, or is outside the state or in federal custody and cannot with due diligence be brought before the court. Upon being received into evidence, such testimony may be read and any videotape or photographic recording thereof played. Where any recording is received into evidence, the stenographic transcript of that examination shall also be received.

Published on: August 14, 2013

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

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered March 7, 1984, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

On April 20, 1983, and again on April 25, 1983, an undercover investigator purchased from the defendant, for $350, a white powdery substance which he believed to be cocaine. Subsequent laboratory tests established that the substance purchased was in fact aspirin. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was charged with one count of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of grand larceny in the third degree as to each of the transactions involved. At trial, the prosecution established that during each transaction, the defendant told the undercover agent that the substance he was selling was cocaine that the defendant took $350 each time in return for the substance, and that in each instance the substance transferred was actually aspirin.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the trial court reserved decision on the defendant’s motion, made at the close of the prosecution’s case, to dismiss those counts of the indictment charging him with grand larceny in the third degree, on the ground that the People failed to make out a prima facie case of the defendant’s guilt. The defendant then testified on his own behalf that he knew the substance was aspirin, but that he participated in the transaction in order to keep the confidential informant who arranged the sale off his back. The jury found the defendant guilty of two counts of grand larceny in the third degree and not guilty of two counts of attempted criminal sale of a controlled drug substance in the third degree. The trial court subsequently denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the grand larceny counts.

Published on: August 14, 2013

The People agree with defendant’s contention that the grand larceny sentence should run concurrently with the other charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, this is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered January 12, 1996 in Albany County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (seven counts).

A New York Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, defendant, a licensed podiatrist and a participating provider in the State Medical Assistance Program (hereinafter Medicaid), was indicted on one count of grand larceny in the second degree (see, Penal Law former § 155.35) and 10 counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.35). The first count implicated defendant’s knowing submission of false claims to Medicaid from December 1985 through August 1986 for custom-made orthotics, which services he had not rendered, resulting in payment to defendant of approximately $20,608. Counts 2 through 11 stem from defendant’s submissions of claims to Medicaid pursuant to procedure code 90473 of the Medicaid Provider Manual from January 1986 through December 1986, knowing that such services had not been provided. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of all charges except those alleged in counts 4, 6 and 11, and was sentenced to a prison term of 2 1/3 to 7 years on the grand larceny conviction and 1 to 3 years each on the seven counts of offering a false instruments for filing, each of which was to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the grand larceny sentence. Defendant was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $20,608. This appeal ensued.

A New York Robbery Lawyer said that, defendant challenges his conviction on several grounds: the erroneous introduction of evidence of uncharged crimes, the vagueness of Medicaid procedure code 90473 and the erroneous imposition of consecutive sentences. Defendant also urges that the sentences imposed are harsh and excessive.