New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 1, 2013

Defendant Contends Sobriety Check Point was Illegal

by Stephen Bilkis

At around midnight of April 15, 1992, the police set up a DWI checkpoint at the corner of Clinton and Stanton Streets in Manhattan. The police officers set up the checkpoint so that all the passing cars would be funneled into one lane and every motorist would have to pass the checkpoint.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said when the accused drove up to the check point, the police officer was standing near the driver’s side. He knocked on the window and the driver rolled down his window. The police officer asked the driver something which he could not remember when he testified at the probable cause/ preclusion hearing. Even the accused could not remember what the police officer asked him.

At this time, the police officer asked the driver to pull over to the side of the street because he saw that the driver had watery bloodshot eyes and he could smell alcohol on his breath. When the driver was already parked on the side of the road, the police officer asked him to exit the car. The driver was unsteady on his feet. The driver told the police officer that he drank two beers and had to shots of vodka. The police officer also found an empty bottle of vodka in the car.

Published on: February 28, 2013

Court Discusses Constructive Possession in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the defendant was found not guilty on a charge of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, but was convicted on the other count made against him of possession of marijuana. The defendant argues that the court made an error by not granting his motion for acquittal as the evidence for the charge was insufficient.

Case Discussion

The conviction of the defendant was for constructive possession and not actual possession. The only evidence that was submitted in regard to the charge of possession of marijuana was that the defendant was alone in the car at the time he was arrested and a later search of the car revealed a marijuana cigarette. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the officer who conducted the search did not remember where it was found and did not note in the inventory of the car where the joint was found.

Published on: February 28, 2013

Defendant Questions Court Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

Defendants stole people’s identities, committed bank fraud when opened fraudulent bank accounts in the victims’ names, and transferred money from the victims’ legitimate bank accounts to the fraudulent ones they controlled from an extensive enterprise which they oversaw. Thus, a New York Criminal Lawyer said they were indicted, among other things, eight incidents of grand larceny in the second and third degrees, based upon the transfer of funds from five separate legitimate bank accounts into five separate fraudulent accounts, after which the stolen funds were withdrawn; three instances of grand larceny in the second degree, based upon the deposit of stolen checks issued to an advertising firm into a fraudulent account defendants had opened in the firm’s name in order to steal the funds. Count one of the indictment charged defendants with grand larceny in the first degree which requires that the stolen property’s value exceed $1 million. Thereafter, on 2 November 2006, the Supreme Court of New York County rendered judgment convicting each defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree (four counts), grand larceny in the third degree (seven counts), forgery in the second degree (seven counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (eight counts), identity theft in the first degree (six counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, and sentencing defendant-one to an aggregate term of 10 to 25 years and sentencing defendant-two to an aggregate term of 12½ to 25 years.

Defendants questioned the court’s decision and claim that their convictions for first degree grand larceny should be vacated because the prosecution achieved the statutory monetary threshold by improperly aggregating the amounts taken from five individuals on eight different occasions and one advertising firm on three different occasions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the People oppose defendants’ contention and argue that the aggregation was proper because defendants’ thefts were made pursuant to a single intent and one general fraudulent plan.

Published on: February 28, 2013

Court Reverses Grand Larceny Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding, an intermediate order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment will have a review from the Supreme Court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said it appears from evidence presented that a bank, a trust company and another corporation executed a statement of trust receipt financing. At the grand jury trial, the three officers of the bank were called as witnesses. The bank paid the automobile company the total sum of $21,430.59 for eight automobiles. An employee of the bank checked the floor plan of the corporation and found out that four from eight of the cars were missing. Another check was made five days later and the remaining four cars were also missing from the floor. Consequently, a letter was delivered to the corporation by the bank in which they demand payment of all amounts due under trust receipts or immediate possession of all new and used cars on which the bank held trust receipts. A similar notice was served and in the interval checks had been received by the bank drawn by the corporate dealer in payment of the amounts due on two of the cars. The checks were not paid because of insufficient funds. The bank received neither the automobiles nor the moneys due.

It was upon the evidence that an indictment was returned accusing the president of the corporation, individually, of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. The president of the corporation, which was the trustee, secreted, withheld and appropriated to his own use, and that of a person other than the true owner of the automobiles.

Published on: February 27, 2013

Court Maintains that Grand Larceny Must be Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on 16 May 1984, defendant was convicted by the County Court of Nassau County of grand larceny in the second degree (three counts), grand larceny in the third degree, petit larceny, commercial bribing or bribery in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree or bank fraud, upon jury verdicts, and attempted grand larceny in the second degree (three counts), upon his pleas of guilty.

Defendant then filed an appeal from the aforesaid six (6) judgments of criminal convictions and contends that the Attorney-General was not properly authorized to conduct Grand Jury proceedings in accordance with Executive, and that the additional Grand Jury which returned the indictments against him was not impaneled in accordance with the rules of the court.

Published on: February 27, 2013

Defendant Claims that Theft Charges Were Time Barred

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1991, the man assumed administrative duties at a nursing home. He became its principal operator in 1995. A New York Criminal Lawyer said at all relevant times, the nursing home was a participant in the Medicaid programs and was reimbursed through such programs for services provided to each state’s residents who were Medicaid recipients residing within its facility.

In 1993, the man, on behalf of the nursing home, submitted rate reports to the state setting forth the nursing home state rate. He thereafter certified that the nursing home was also going to provide physical, occupational and speech therapy services, as well as dental services, to the state’s Medicaid recipients but that the cost of such services was not included in the home state rate. Based upon the said reports, the state calculated the nursing home’s daily rate and then included add-on payments for the specified ancillary services.

In 1998, the state advised the nursing home that they going to review the services they provided to the state’s Medicaid recipients by out-of-state providers. They also requested the nursing home to make available for inspection all patient records dating back 1992. Following the said investigation, the man and the nursing home were each charged with two counts of grand larceny in the first degree and two counts of grand larceny in the second degree.

Published on: February 26, 2013

Couple Charged with Grand Larceny in Bad Check Scheme

by Stephen Bilkis

A husband and wife were accused of having issued checks that bounced. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said there were nineteen checks issued altogether and the value of each check amount to no less than twenty dollars and no more than thirty dollars. The checks were issued as payment of items bought at nine different stores and business establishments.

The public prosecutor brought these facts to the Grand Jury and asked the Grand Jury to hand down an indictment against the spouses for grand larceny. The grand larceny issued an indictment for grand larceny. Before arraignment, the accused couple asked the trial court to order the district attorney to file a bill of particulars to state the facts on which the charges are based.

When the district attorney had complied and had submitted the bill of particulars, the couple moved for the dismissal of the charges. The couple argues that grand larceny cannot be charged against them as each check represents a separate crime. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the checks were issued not to one person and they were not negotiated at any one establishment. Thus, the couple contends, no crime of grand larceny was committed because none of the checks issued amounted to $250 dollars although the aggregate value of all the checks, if added together, amounts to $425. The couple maintains that the nineteen checks cannot be considered as a whole or as an aggregate sum.

Published on: February 26, 2013

Court Finds Scheme to Defraud Regarding DEC Permits

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the counts charge the defendants in conjunction with payments made by several corporation/parties. It is the theory of the prosecution that criminal liability attached to the actions of the defendants because the money which the defendants obtained as a result of the transactions involving several corporation / parties was paid as a result of either trick or device, false promise, or some combination of both.

In support of this contention the District Attorney adduced evidence before the grand jury to the effect that the defendants either acting directly or through others, made both oral and written presentations to the effect that their new process made “tremendous steps” toward reducing the impact of underground tank discharges so as to protect “our land, air and water” and to promote their services as “today’s solution to yesterday’s pollution”.

Upon examination of the record the court ruled that these generators only sought a disposition of their P.C.S. which would absolve them from liability both in terms of their obligation to remove the material from their premises pursuant to E.C.L. Article 17 Title 10, (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. and other such similar laws and at the same time avoid the continuing sanctions pursuant to these laws which could follow if the material, having been taken off the sites owned or controlled by the generators, was improperly re-introduced into the waste stream.

Published on: February 26, 2013

Court Discusses Elements of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was accused of the crimes of criminal mischief in the second degree, two counts of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and two counts of attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accusation arise from the incident when the man directed his agents or employees to widen and reconstruct a town road and did thereby intentionally damage property of another person by destroying trees, stone walls, and wire fences, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he had such right, and did thereby steal and appropriate said road and property for his own benefit.

The man then made a motion and submitted an affidavit seeking various items of pre-trial relief. In the motion, the man asked the court to inspect the grand jury minutes. The court then granted the request to the extent that the court will examine the transcript of the proceedings.

Published on: February 25, 2013

Court Decides Charges of Illegal Prescriptions

by Stephen Bilkis

An undercover police officer had heard rumors that it was possible to purchase drugs without prescription from a pharmacy in Manhattan. He had also heard it said that it was also possible to purchase drugs using a different prescription and the purchase price was discounted when a Medicaid car was used.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the undercover police officer entered the pharmacy and asked to buy forty pills of an antidepressant and a drug for treating high blood pressure. The pharmacy clerk out front told the undercover police officer that 40 pills were too many to sell without a prescription. He also told the undercover police officer that it was a federal crime to sell those drugs without a prescription. However, the clerk told the undercover police officer that he will speak to his boss who will decide. A few minutes later, the clerk came out with two bottles of pills, each containing forty pills. One set of pills was stamp-marked 2105V and the other was stamped 129. He paid twenty dollars for each bottle of pills.

A week later the same undercover cop returned to the pharmacy and asked for 20 antidepressants and 20 high blood pressure pills. He was given two bottles again, one contained 25 pills marked 2105V and 25 pills marked 129.