New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: August 4, 2013

The court sentenced the woman to a prison term of three to nine years on her conviction of grand larceny

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman filed an appeal from the decision convicting her of the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree and in the fourth degree, forgery in the second degree and identity theft in the third degree. The woman’s husband also appealed from the decision convicting him of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree.

After the woman spent more than $150,000 from bank accounts held jointly with her elderly grandmother, she and her husband were charged with grand larceny in the second degree. The woman was also charged with grand larceny in the fourth degree and forgery in the second degree as a result of her endorsement of a check payable to her deceased father, and identity theft in the third degree based upon her application for and use of a credit card under the name of her grandmother.

At the trial, the evidence revealed that the funds in the joint bank accounts had come solely from the woman’s grandmother, and that grandmother voluntarily placed the funds in joint names to enable the woman to pay her grandmother’s bills and expenses. The woman then wrote many checks on the accounts payable to herself. She also used $75,000 of the funds to purchase a home for her grandmother to live in. But, the woman put the name of the house under her name and eventually sold it, keeping the proceeds. Neither the woman nor her husband testified at trial, but their attorney argued that use of the funds could not constitute larceny because the woman was a joint owner of the accounts. Consequently, the court rejected the argument, charging the jury as to criminal larceny.

Published on: August 4, 2013

The Supreme Court ruled that it was an abuse of discretion to impose a minimum 4 year term of imprisonment

by Stephen Bilkis

It was in the afternoon of July 17, 1973, the female complainant in this case entered the elevator at the first floor of her apartment building. She had a cast on her broken foot and was using crutches. The 30-year old male defendant was already on the elevator and, although the complainant pressed the button for an upper floor, on which her apartment was located, the elevator descended to the basement. The doors opened and the defendant turned to face the complainant with a small knife in his hand. He told her, by the use of an indecent phrase, that he wanted her to submit to sex with him. She refused and he then demanded that she give him money and she said she did not have any. She retained her composure and protected herself from the defendant by her very resolve not to comply with anything he asked. While this was happening the elevator door closed and the elevator ascended to the first floor, at which time the defendant ran away.

He was subsequently arrested, indicted by the Grand Jury and tried. On October 26, 1973, he was convicted by the jury of the crimes of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and Possession of a Weapon as a Misdemeanor, and was sentenced to a minimum of four years to a maximum of twelve on the attempted robbery, first degree count. Defendant later moved for the dismissal of the criminal charges and the striking of the imposition of the minimum 4 year term of imprisonment on the Attempted Robbery count. He claims further that the Trial Court made certain inappropriate remarks showing its hostility against him.

Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that it was an abuse of discretion to impose a minimum 4 year term of imprisonment on the Attempted Robbery charge. The court noted that while the felony was serious, nevertheless, imposition of the 12 year maximum term gives adequate scope of punishment.

Published on: August 4, 2013

The Officer responded that he saw the defendant in the house on May 7, 1992

by Stephen Bilkis

A Suffolk Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered October 22, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

The issue in this case is whether the evidence should be suppressed.

The court in deciding the case said that, preliminarily, it note that the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing sufficiently established the existence of probable cause to arrest the defendant. An experienced narcotics officer testified that, in an area which is known for its high incidence of narcotics trafficking, he observed the defendant exchange several small clear plastic bags for a sum of United States currency. This officer, together with his partner, thereafter followed the defendant into a nearby establishment, known as the “Blue Room”. Several patrons alerted the defendant to the fact that the police had arrived upon the scene, and the defendant was observed by both officers throwing a small plastic bag toward the bar area. The officer subsequently retrieved the bag, and discovered that it contained what he believed to be cocaine. The retrieval of the plastic bag discarded by the defendant, which appeared to contain cocaine, provided the necessary probable cause to arrest him.

Published on: August 3, 2013

The Court reversed the decision issued earlier.

by Stephen Bilkis

In a criminal case, defendant was convicted of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree, 17 counts of grand larceny in the third degree and one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree. County Court sentenced him to concurrent indeterminate terms of incarceration of 5 to 15 years for each count of grand larceny in the second degree, 2 to 6 years on each count of grand larceny in the third degree and a definite term of one year for grand larceny in the fourth degree.

The Court concludes that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Defendant had no criminal history prior to these nonviolent offenses and has expressed remorse for his actions and their consequences. He voluntarily turned himself into authorities, confessed to the crimes and entered a guilty plea. Most of his victims contacted the court requesting that defendant not be sentenced to a term of incarceration. There were numerous letters submitted to the court by friends and family attesting to defendant’s good character and prospects for rehabilitation.

The Court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence to 2 to 6 years of incarceration on each count of grand larceny in the second degree, and 1 to 3 years of incarceration on each count of grand larceny in the third degree, for an aggregate sentence of 2 to 6 years.

Published on: August 3, 2013

On appeal, the judgment was affirmed.

by Stephen Bilkis

On 12 May 2008, the County Court of Suffolk County rendered judgment convicting a certain defendant of criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts), attempted rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict. Domestic violence could be involved.

On appeal, the judgment was affirmed.

Here, the criminal defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was unpreserved for appellate review. This is pursuant to CPL 470.05[2] and the court’s ruling in the case of People v. Hawkins. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and pursuant to the case of People v. Contes, the court found that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Published on: August 2, 2013

Grand larceny is committed when a person steals property

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 11, 1977, the 42-year old female defendant in this case asked the complainant for ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in exchange for dropping a complaint for rape filed against complainant’s husband. This criminal incident allegedly took place in the courthouse, in a hall outside of a courtroom. Because of this, defendant was charged with attempted grand larceny in the third degree, by extortion, an “A” felony. The defendant moved that the charges be dismissed on the theory that the People had failed to shoulder their evidentiary burden of demonstrating reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the criminal offense charged.

Under the law, grand larceny is committed when a person steals property and when the property, regardless of its nature and value, is obtained by extortion. Larceny by extortion is further defined by law as follows: “A person obtains property by extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another” will do any of the nine (9) specific instances delineating the nature of the threat or type of intimidation by which the larceny is intended to be performed.

One of these instances includes the following act: “to testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense.” This is the kind of threat that possibly or remotely applies to the facts of this case because of the allegations that defendant asked for money in exchange for withholding her claim against the complainant’s husband.

Published on: August 2, 2013

On 26 January 2009, the County Court of Suffolk County issued an order resentencing another defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

On 29 November 2006, the County Court of Suffolk County rendered judgment convicting a certain defendant of rape in the second degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty.

On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the County Court. Domestic violence was not charged and a drug was not found.

Here, the County Criminal Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. As a rule, a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court, whose determination generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion. This is clearly stated in CPL 220.60[3]; and is the court’s ruling in the cases of People v. Seeber, People v. Villalobos, People v. Hines, People v. Massey, People v. Torres, and People v. DeLeon. Based on the records of the case, there was sufficient evidence to support the County Court’s determination that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Moreover, the defendant entered his negotiated plea of guilty with the assistance of competent counsel, in exchange of a very favorable sentence promise. What’s more, the defendant’s unsubstantiated claim of dissatisfaction with the representation of his attorney was refuted by his statements during the plea allocution.

Published on: August 2, 2013

Petitioner contends that PD has not performed a diligent search

by Stephen Bilkis

In this Sex Crime, Petitioner commenced this Article 78 proceeding against the respondents Police Department (PD) and its Commissioner to compel the production of records relating to raids on certain bondage, dominance, sadism and masochism establishments, pursuant to New York’s Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), and for attorneys’ fees and costs related to this action.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that is a New York not-for-profit legal and social services corporation. One of its divisions, Sex Workers Project, is engaged in protecting the rights of people referred to as “sex workers,” people profiled as “sex workers” and victims of human trafficking. Thereafter, in 2008, Petitioner made a FOIL request to PD for certain documents relating to raids conducted between April and September of 2008 by the Police District on BDSM establishments.

Petitioner’s request sought the production of records that fell into two distinct categories: (1) training manuals as to arrests for prostitution and (2) memos and manuals of policies and investigation records of bondage and domination establishments. No arson and no assault were involved.

Published on: August 1, 2013

When the charge was concluded the defendant took an exception

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of the crimes of Robbery in the First Degree, Grand larceny in the Third Degree and Possession of a Dangerous Weapon.

A New York Grand larceny lawyer said that the defendant was indicted for various crimes growing out of an incident which occurred in March 1971. According to the complainant, two men assaulted him and then proceeded to take his watch and $89. The criminal defendant admitted meeting the complainant at the time and approximate location alleged by him, but related a far different version of the events. The defendant maintained that he obtained $25 from the complainant on the false representation that he had a television set which he would sell to the complainant.

At the conclusion of the testimony, defense counsel requested that the Court charge the jury with respect to the crime of petit larceny, urging that it was a lesser-included crime of count two of the indictment wherein it was alleged that the defendant had committed the crime of grand larceny in the third degree by stealing ‘from the person certain property of an aggregate value not in excess of $250’ Despite that request, counsel, nevertheless, took the position that defendant could not be convicted of petit larceny by false pretenses–the crime which defendant, in effect, admitted–since that crime was not specifically alleged in the indictment. The District Attorney, however, correctly pointed out that the Penal Law does not require that the indictment contained specific allegations concerning the manner in which the larceny was committed, and apparently took the position that the crime of petit larceny by false pretenses could be submitted to the jury. At that point the Court stated that it would charge ‘the additional lesser included count’.

Published on: August 1, 2013

The People sharply contradict the position taken by the defendants.

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendants have been indicted for the crimes of forgery and grand larceny. The gist of the charge against the defendants is that they fraudulently obtained rent monies from various tenants of a real estate firm.

According to the a New York Criminal Attorney, the alleged thefts were effectuated by means of the utterance of false instruments purporting to emanate from the firm, instructing tenants to send their rent payments to a fictitious auditing firm, which in reality was a front for the defendants.

The first count of the indictment, charging the defendants with forgery in the second degree, accuses them of forging a written instrument with intent to defraud others. The second count, also charging the defendants with forgery in the second degree, alleges they uttered this instrument with knowledge that it had been forged. The remainder of this fourteen count indictment accuses each defendant of twelve, separate crimes of grand larceny in the second degree.