New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

On 3 May 1995, defendant was convicted of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, one count of Assault in the Second Degree, one count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree, and two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree.

On 15 May 1995, defendant was sentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of ten to twenty years for each Robbery in the First Degree conviction, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of seven and one-half to fifteen years on five of the six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three and one-half to seven years on the Assault in the Second Degree conviction, one year determinate on the Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree conviction, and one year determinate for both Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree counts.

The sentencing Court ran the two Robbery in the First Degree sentences, and two of the Robbery in the Second Degree sentences consecutive to one another, for a total indeterminate sentence of thirty-five (35) to seventy (70) years.
The remaining counts were to run concurrently to the four counts that the Court ran consecutively to one another.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that subsequently, defendant filed an appeal. It was found that the sentencing Court had mistakenly failed to sentence defendant on one of the six Robbery in the Second Degree counts; remitted the case back to Supreme Court for defendant to be resentenced on all six of the Robbery in the Second Degree counts.

On 8 April 1998, defendant appeared in Supreme Court for resentencing on the Robbery in the Second Degree counts.

The Court sentenced defendant on those counts only and maintained its earlier sentence with the exception that defendant was sentenced on the previously missing count of Robbery in the Second Degree to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of seven and one-half to fifteen years to run consecutively to the four counts that were previously run consecutively to one another.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the defendant's new sentence was an indeterminate term of imprisonment of forty-two and one-half (42 ½) to eighty-five (85) years.
Defendant filed an appeal following his resentence arguing that it was excessive.
The appeal was denied and the resentence affirmed.

On 20 June 2006, defendant moved pro se, to set aside his sentence on the grounds that: (1) he was unlawfully adjudicated a second violent felony offender because his predicate offense was not a violent felony; and (2) he was denied a hearing after informing the Court that he wished to challenge the constitutionality of his predicate felony offense.
On 3 November 2006, the Court denied defendant's first assertion that his predicate felony was not a violent felony, but did grant defendant a hearing to challenge the constitutionality of his predicate felony conviction.

On 27 April 2007, the motion to vacate defendant's sentence was denied.
Defendant now moves pro se, for an order setting aside his sentence. Defendant contends that: (1) the resentencing Court exceeded the mandate of the Second Department by resentencing defendant on the Robbery in the First Degree counts by running the previously omitted Robbery in the Second Degree count consecutive to those counts; (2) the resentencing Court acted vindictively, and impermissibly, by increasing the aggregate sentence from thirty-five (35) to seventy (70) years to forty-two and one-half (42 ½) to eighty-five (85) years by running the previously omitted count consecutive to the other counts; and (3) the resentencing Court did not allow defendant to speak and failed to inquire of defendant if he wished to speak at his resentencing.

Here, defendant makes three claims for the first time which he failed to raise in either of his previous two appeals or his previously filed motion.

Criminal Procedure Law provides the grounds for which the Court "must" and "may" deny a motion to set aside a sentence on procedural grounds. A motion to set aside is procedurally barred where the grounds have previously been decided. Despite defendant’s numerous filing in association with the case, he has not raised these issues in his previous appeals or his previous motion to set aside, and therefore, the Court will consider each ground for relief submitted by defendant on the merits.

First, defendant contends that the resentencing Court exceeded the mandate of the Second Department's decision in one case.

The contention is entirely without merit.

The sentencing minutes are clear that defendant was not being resentenced on any counts other than the Robbery in the Second Degree counts. The defendant was convicted of six counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, but was only sentenced on five counts of Robbery in the Second Degree. The sentences imposed on the defendant for the remaining counts he was convicted of still stand. Furthermore, defendant's contention that the resentencing Court somehow resentenced defendant the Robbery in the First Degree counts by running the previously omitted count of the Robbery in the Second Degree consecutive to those counts is not supported by any legal authority, the court file, or the resentencing minutes.

Second, defendant contends that the resentencing Court acted vindictively when it ran the sentence of the previously omitted Robbery in the Second Degree count consecutive to the other counts and increased his aggregate sentence from thirty-five (35) to seventy (70) years to forty-two (42½) to eighty-five (85) years.

The Court acknowledges the well settled principle that criminal defendants should not be penalized for exercising their right to appeal. Explaining further, the Court of Appeals has held, "In order to insure that trial courts do not impose longer sentences to punish defendant for taking an appeal, a presumption of vindictiveness generally arises when defendants who have won appellate reversals are given greater sentences after their retrials than were imposed after their initial convictions.

Here, the reviewing authority did not reverse the convictions on any counts, and thus no retrial was held. The Second Department vacated the five Robbery in the Second Degree sentences because the sentencing Court mistakenly failed to sentence defendant on all six Robbery in the Second Degree convictions. The Court did not increase the defendant's sentence after retrial on the same charges, which would carry the presumption of vindictiveness, but entered a legal sentence on all of the convictions for the first time. Inasmuch as the prior sentences imposed were vacated as illegal, no presumption of vindictiveness attaches to resentencing. Undoubtedly, defendant has failed to establish that the resentencing was vindictive.

Finally, defendant contends that he was not afforded the right to speak at his resentencing in violation of law.

The Court of Appeals has clearly held that it is not error for the sentencing court not to follow the literal dictates of the law, if it substantially complies with the mandates therein.

Here, defendant's counsel made a statement on his behalf at the resentence and never alerted the Court that defendant had anything to say. Defendant does not now allege that he had a statement to make to the Court at the resentencing. The resentencing Court therefore substantially complied with the mandates of the law, in accord with the Court of Appeals precedent in two cases, and defendant's claim is without merit.

Insofar as defendant's motion raised issues that the Court was able to address by reviewing the submissions of the parties and the court file, including the records of defendant's two appeals, there is no need for the Court to conduct a hearing on such matter.

Consequently, defendant's motion to set aside his sentence is denied.

When it comes to criminal defense, whether if is for sex crimes, theft or drugs, Stephen Bilkis & Associates is the best. We have the finest lawyers in the country all of whom possess remarkable skills combined with years of experience. Our NY Criminal Attorneys are highly competitive and determined to defend you before courts of law. For a free consultation, contact us and speak to an NY Robbery Attorney, among others, from our firm.

The appellants of the case are Tynesha M. Rivers, Nikina D. Cunningham, and Stacy L. Rivers representing herself and as the parent/custodian of minor Tevon J. Elmore. The appellees in the case are James Donohoe, Linda Love, and a Florida Corporation, Dillards Department Store, Inc.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the 20th of August in 1994, Tynesha Rivers, Nikina Cunningham, Stacy Rivers and her son Tevon all went to Dillards Department store to shop. Stacy and her son went to the upstairs part of the store and Tynesha and Nikina went to shop for shoes in the shoe department. The girls were waiting for a salesperson to bring them a pair of shoes to try on when they were approached by officer Donohoe, a security guard for the store. Officer Donohoe asked them for their identification, but did not tell them why he wanted it. The two girls gave him their identification and he took it and walked away. Tynesha continued shopping and paid for a pair of shoes.

When Donohoe returned he took the two girls to another area of the store. He placed his arm on Cunningham at one point and both girls said they felt like they had to go with him because of the authority he was showing. Stacy and her son arrived in the area as well and Donohoe took her identification as well. He offered no explanation as to why. He placed all four of them in an area and told them to sit and wait. While waiting they noticed a bulletin board that was labeled the “wall of shame.” After waiting for a while, Love entered the room and proceeded to take Rivers picture without her consent. The women were told that they were not welcome in the department store and if they returned they would be arrested for trespassing. Stacy asked to return the shoes that she had just bought, but was not allowed to do so. They were all evicted from the premises.

Appellants Case

According to testimony provided by all of the women none of them had any prior convictions for shoplifting and never been suspected of committing any type of criminal offense. Stacy Rivers stated that she had never had any problems in the store. Cunningham stated that Donohoe asked them to go with him, but never told them that they were being accused of shoplifting. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the women sued the store on the basis of intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, battery, libel, and an invasion of privacy.

Appellees Case

A salesgirl is the person who first called attention to the women. She stated that she had seen them in the store before and they showed the signs of shoplifters. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that they would immediately separate when they entered the store and then take clothes into parts of the store where they would not be seen. She called Donohoe and asked him to ask the women to leave. He said that it would have to be a manager to do this.

Previous Ruling and Court Decision

In the previous case, the civil court granted a summary judgment in favor of the appellees on all counts and charges. However, upon further review of the case we feel that there needs to be more consistent accounts of what happened on the day in question. Therefore we reverse the previous order and rule in favor of the appellants.

With offices located throughout the city of New York, Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers convenient access to great legal services. If you or a loved one is in need of legal advice,whether it is for petit larcency, sex crimes or theft, you may contact one of our offices at any time to set up a free consultation with one of our experts in the field.

A man was convicted of sex crimes, including rape, sodomy and sex abuse. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of six to eighteen years for the rape and sodomy convictions and two to six years for the sex abuse convictions. According to the State Division of Criminal Justice Services website, he is designated as a Level 2 sex offender who is subject to lifetime registration under the State's sex offender registration program. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the man is an inmate at a Correctional Facility, where he returned for violating parole after having been previously released from prison.

By letter, the man requested that the State Housing Authority provide him with an application for housing and an application for a Section 8 certificate. In the letter, he claimed that he was disabled, homeless and currently incarcerated, but that upon his release in the near future he would be in need of housing. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the State Housing Authority responded by a letter enclosed with the Guide to Applying for Public Housing, a public housing application and a Guide to Section 8 Housing Assistance. The letter stated that no Section 8 application was enclosed because The State Housing Authority was no longer accepting Section 8 Program applications since the waiting list had been closed since May 15, 2007 except to applicants that met certain emergency criteria.

The Section 8 Housing Assistance Program is a federal program administered by local public housing authorities (PHAs); the State Housing Authority administers the program. The Section 8 Program is a voucher program that makes housing more affordable to very low-income families by subsidizing private landlords, thus allowing the families to obtain housing at below market prices. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funding for the Section 8 Program to the local PHAs. There are two categories of housing assistance in the Section 8 Program: tenant-based and project-based. In the tenant-based assistance, families choose where they want to live, and if the unit is approved by the local PHA, the PHA contracts with the owner and makes rental subsidy payments on behalf of the family. In the project-based assistance, the subsidies are paid by the PHA to assist families in specific housing developments.

Individuals who are subject to a state's lifetime sex offender registration requirement are prohibited from obtaining federal housing assistance. Under the State Sex Offender Registration Act, there are three levels of registration based on the offender's risk of reoffending. Level one sex offenders are deemed to have the lowest risk of reoffending; they are required to register for a period of twenty years. Level two and Level three sex offenders respectively are deemed to have a moderate and high risk of reoffending and are both subject to lifetime registration.
A PHA may periodically close the Section 8 Program waiting list to applicants because the demand for housing often exceeds the housing available. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the PHA may accept applications that meet certain criteria while the waiting list is closed. The State Housing Authority Section 8 Program waiting list was closed and was briefly reopened. When its waiting list is closed, the State Housing Authority accepts only applications that meet the criteria of one of three emergency categories. The emergency categories are for victims of domestic violence, intimidated witnesses referred by the district attorney or families or individuals referred by the Administration for Children's Services.

On his next letter, the man again requested that the State Housing Authority provide him with a Section 8 application. In the letter, he outlined his medical conditions as open heart surgery without providing documentation.

In his next letter, the man appealed to the State Housing Authority to review his Section 8 Application arguing that the State Housing Authority’s denial of his Application because he was not a victim of domestic violence violated the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). A Queens Sex Crime Lawyer said he contended that his well- documented disability afforded him the right to apply for and be placed on the waiting list for the Section 8 Program. He claimed that the State Housing Authority discriminated against him because of his disability. He also argued that his being kept off the waiting list was a violation of his due process and equal protection rights under the United States Constitution.

Discrimination by a public entity against an individual is prohibited under Title II of the ADA. Subject to the provisions of the subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by such entity. To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, the petitioner must allege that he is a qualified individual with a disability. The petitioner must also allege that he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity's services, programs or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity and he must prove that such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination, was by reason of his disability.

The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals by the recipient entities of federal funding. No otherwise qualified individual with a disability shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. To state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, the petitioner must allege that he is an individual with a disability and he is otherwise qualified to receive the benefit. The petitioner must also allege that he was denied the benefits of the program solely by reason of his disability. The program receives federal financial assistance.

The man has failed to sufficiently allege a claim under either Title II of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act because his petition contains no documentation of his alleged disability and, as evidenced by the State Housing Authority’s letter, the man’s Application was not denied based on his alleged disability but because the Section 8 Waiting list closed except for Victims of Domestic Violence. Further, the man claims that his rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution have been violated because the State Housing Authority blocked him from the Section 8 waiting list and because the list should be made available to people with disabilities by brief mention without supporting facts or law. To state a claim for procedural or substantive due process violations, the petitioner must first show that he has a property interest. He must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. To state a claim for an equal protection violation, the petitioner must show that he was discriminated against by a government entity on the basis of being a member of a protected class, such as race, national origin or gender.

The man has failed to show that he had either a legitimate property interest or has been deprived of a legitimate property interest in a position on the State Housing Authority’s Section 8 waiting list. The mere anticipation of a position on the waiting list does not establish a property interest of which the man has been deprived by the State Housing Authority. Therefore, the man without a property interest that has been deprived by the State Housing Authority has failed to state a claim for a due process violation.

The man has also failed to show that he has been discriminated against on the basis of one of the protected classes under the equal protection clause, such as race, national origin or gender. He has failed to show that the State Housing Authority denied him access to its Section 8 waiting list on the basis of his claimed disability. The State Housing Authority lawfully closed its waiting list to disabled and non-disabled individuals unless their application met the criteria of one of the three emergency categories. Therefore, the man without a showing that he was discriminated solely on the basis of his disability has failed to state a claim for an equal protection violation. Further, the man’s claim is doubtful because, even if the State Housing Authority accepted his Application, as a lifetime sex offender under the State's sex offender registration program, he is prohibited from obtaining Section 8 Housing Assistance.

Victims of violence particularly women and children are being protected further by the law. To be aware of the support and aids available for domestic violence victims, contact the offices of Stephen Bilkis and Associates and talk to the team of NY Domestic Violence Attorneys. For appropriate criminal legal actions to consider, approach any of the New York Criminal Lawyers of the firm.

Initially, the court held that records reflecting the calibration of breath test machine and analysis of breath test simulator solution used in DWI cases were non-testimonial hearsay and admissible over confrontation clause objection under business records exception. The certifications to be submitted for the calibration or maintenance of the breath test instrument and the analysis of the Breath Alcohol simulator solution used in the breath test instrument are either testimonial or non-testimonial in nature. When proven to be testimonial then the complainant must bring in the analyst. If it is non-testimonial, the complainant may lay the basis for introduction of the records.

Testimonial statements are material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, extrajudicial statements, depositions, prior confession, prior testimony that the accused was unable to cross-examine, similar pretrial statements, formalized testimonial materials and statements that were made under circumstances that the complainant would reasonably expect to be used in the later trial.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Supreme Court deliberately left for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of testimonial. The Court does say that when a non-testimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the design to afford the states flexibility in their development of hearsay law. The Supreme Court's analysis of testimony excludes some hearsay exceptions, such as business and official records. To hold otherwise would require numerous additional witnesses without any apparent gains in the truth-seeking process. After all, cross-examination is a tool to flesh out the truth, not an empty procedure.

One State Law allows a lab chemist to test materials for drugs and to send in a sworn statement as to the identification of the drug and its weight. The sworn statements were submitted as legitimate evidence of what was asserted. A New York Law would not allow this. The chemist is necessary as a witness to establish what he analyzed. The court limits extrajudicial statements to formalize testimonial materials such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony or confessions.

Business and public records are generally admissible absent confrontation not because they qualify under an exception to the hearsay rules, but because they have been created for the administration of an entity's affairs and not testimonial. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said the court specifically states that it does not hold anyone whose testimony may be relevant in establishing the chain of custody, authenticity of the sample or accuracy of the testing, must appear in person as part of the complainant’s case. Additionally, the documents prepared in the regular course of equipment for maintenance may well qualify as non-testimonial records.

The Court is aware of recent Court DWI rulings with regard to the challenge of Alcotest results and not bound by it and finds its rationale to decide not in accordance with most State Court’s findings that calibration reports are not testimonials and qualify as admissible business records. In addition, even business records devised primarily for litigation receive business record protection so long as they have a secondary business purpose. Therefore, the court will not hold that the calibration and simulator solution records cannot be considered as typical business records. The breathalyzer machine can be used not only for legal action purposes such as criminal cases but it can also be beneficial for non-legal intentions. If an accused person who takes the breathalyzer test blows a reading of .06% or below within two hours after the arrest, it is legitimate evidence that he is not intoxicated. Maintaining it has a minimum a dual purpose.

Accordingly, the certifications for the calibration and maintenance of the breath test instrument and the analysis of the Breath Alcohol simulator solution used in the breath test instrument will be allowed to be admitted at trial pending a proper foundational basis being established.
When the Court makes its conclusion, one party will surely rejoice leaving the other party grieving. Whether you have been charged with a DWI, sex crimes or a theft crime, make an appointment with Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

A police officer and his partner were on routine patrol at one of the intersections in Queens County. The officers noticed the woman driving a grey Cadillac passed through a steady red light. The other officer pulled the vehicle over and as he approached, the woman rolled down her window. As the officer requested the woman's license and registration, he noticed that she had bloodshot, watery eyes, and also detected the strong smell of alcohol on the woman’s breath. The officer further observed that the woman seemed disoriented and unaware of her surroundings. The officer requested the woman to step out of the vehicle, at which he also noticed that the woman was unsteady on her feet. The officer placed the woman under arrest. As the officer was escorting the woman to the squad car, she became very loud and argumentative towards the officer.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the woman was brought to the Precinct Intoxicated Drivers Testing Unit (I.D.T.U.) for the purposes of performing chemical testing. The woman was immediately brought to the basement of the precinct where the breathalyzer testing is performed. Present at the testing site were the arresting officer, his partner and two other officers of the precinct. At no time were Miranda warnings given to the woman by the arresting officer.

The officer of the precinct confirmed that he was the officer responsible for administering the breathalyzer test to the woman. The officer also alleged that he has six years of experience with the I.D.T.U., and has conducted six hundred of such tests at a rate of approximately thirty per month.

The test as administered was videotaped and the videotaped was offered into evidence and carefully reviewed by the court. The court observed that the quality of the audio portion of the tape is extremely poor, rendering it almost inaudible and of questionable use as evidence. For that reason, the court relies mainly on the visual portion of the tape and the testimony of the officer of the precinct in assessing what happened during the woman's chemical testing. At the beginning, as seen on the tape, the woman permitted the officer when asked to take the breathalyzer. For the reason of her permission, the officer didn’t read full the refusal warnings. However, as the officer attempted to have her blow into the breathalyzer, the woman laughed, carried on in a whimsical manner, and stated that she don’t want to blow and wanted to get her keys to go home. At one point during the efforts to take the test, the woman apparently removed the mouthpiece from the breathalyzer and the officer had to reset the machine. The officer then warned the woman in response to the said conduct and stated that if the woman doesn’t blow into the machine she will lose her license. The woman laughed in response, the officer considered that behavior as a refusal. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said the officer claimed that the full refusal warnings were given to the woman after he deemed her to have refused but were not videotaped.

The court finds that the stop of the woman’s vehicle by the police officer constitutes legally permissible police action. A police officer may approach and stop a vehicle when a reasonable suspicion that a violation of traffic regulations is involved and observed. It is clear that the police action was not the product of simple desire, caprice or idle curiosity, but was performed in response to a traffic infraction personally observed by the arresting officer.

Based on the record, to validate a DWI, the police officer must have had reasonable grounds to effectuate the arrest. Reasonable grounds for an arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol may be established through the police officer's observations of the accused person’s condition and/or utilizing the screening or field sobriety tests.

The court finds that based upon the officer’s personal observations of the woman, the officer had probable reason to effectuate the arrest. The officer observed her to have classic signs of intoxication such as bloodshot and watery eyes, strong smell of alcohol on her breath, her appearance of disoriented and was unsteady on her feet. For those reasons, the woman’s motion to suppress her refusal based upon a lack of credible reason is denied.

Legal charges against us or any family member is very difficult to cope with whether the charge involves sex crimes, a drug offense of a DWI. However, seeking legal assistance is a way to face those dilemmas. If you’ve been arrested for driving while intoxicated violation, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance.

This legal action is filed against a restaurant by a husband who seeks to recover damages for injuries he sustained in a vehicular accident. His wife was driving while intoxicated and lost control of the vehicle. He claimed that the restaurant violated a general obligation law because his wife’s intoxication resulted from the restaurant’s serving the alcoholic drink, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The restaurant move for a legal action to terminate the complaint filed to them on the ground that the husband purchased the alcoholic beverages for his wife and thus has no cause of action against them based on a violation of the general obligation law. In support of their action, the restaurant relied on the statement and testimony of the couple.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, at around 10 to 10:30 p.m., the couple consumed a bottle of beer from another restaurant then went home. Afterwards, the couple then went to the restaurant which they summoned. The couple arrived at approximately 11:00 p.m. The husband bought beers for his wife and they both drank at least four to five bottles of it. They left the said restaurant at about 1:30 a.m. and the wife was the one driving the vehicle. As they were proceeding north, the car went out of control, crossed over to the opposite bound lane and jumped on a guard rail. The husband sustained serious injuries in the accident.

The couple submitted their affidavits in opposition to the action. They explained that when they stated the testimony that the husband bought the beer for his wife it was meant only in the sense that he supplied the money for the purchase because the money was in his pocket, but the money which he earns is shared equally by them and they file a joint income tax return. During the course of the evening, either of them would go to the bar to place orders for their beers and the husband never purchased drinks for his wife unless she asked for them.

The couple opposes on two grounds. The first argument states that, to impede the husband from recovery under the general obligation law would be an unparalleled extension of the concept of procuring alcoholic beverages and would leave husbands and wives unprotected by that law. They contend that both public policy and law treat a married couple as a single entity and that marriage entity bought and paid for the beer. They also claim that there is a factual issue as to whether the husband bought the alcoholic beverages for his wife.

According to the couple, because of their status as married, they were drinking companions and from time to time they go out to socialize and have a few beers together as they did on the night of the accident. They frame the issue on the motion as whether a husband can be considered the procurer of alcohol for his wife when his wife requests the alcoholic beverages and places some of the orders for the alcoholic beverages herself, and joint income is used for their purchase.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said it is well settled that a person who procured the alcoholic beverage for the person whose intoxication allegedly caused his injury has no cognizable cause of action based upon a violation of the general obligation law. It is sufficient that the plaintiff merely contributed to the purchase of the alcoholic beverages which caused the person's intoxication.

Since the plaintiff's own affidavits establish that during the course of the evening, the husband placed at least some of the orders for his wife’s drinks and provided funds in which he had an interest for the purchase, he played a more affirmative role than that of mere drinking companion to his wife. The court finds that the husband procured the alcoholic beverages and accordingly, the general obligation law cannot be maintained.

The Plaintiff further argues that the case law which precludes damage recovery to one who procures the alcoholic beverage should not apply to a married couple. Under the plaintiff's analysis, a spouse would have to coerce his or her partner into drinking in order to be regarded as a procurer of alcoholic beverages for the intoxicated partner and be denied relief under the law. Such a result would carve out an exception for married a couple which has no legal basis. Whether a person procured alcoholic beverages for another must be decided without regard to a person's marital status. A person who does not procure alcoholic beverages for his spouse is protected by the law; one who does is not.

Since the husband’s cause of action cannot be maintained, the wife’s derivative action must also be dismissed.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer commented that tragic things can happen merely because someone is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When you are caught in this kind of circumstances and you feel the need for legal advice, speak to at Stephen Bilkis & Associates is always ready and prepared to respond to your legal related demands.

Whether or not the sex crime committed is way too harsh or not, it is important to handle it well especially with the help of an expert legal counsel. It is a fact that our modern society today is filled with a lot of sex crime offenders not just due to personal deficiencies but also triggered by the advance media especially with the onset of online technology. This particular case that was tackled by a New York rape lawyer can be very educational especially when you find it too difficult to understand such crimes committed.

The case involves a Mark S. as the appellant whose case was related to the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 by the court which handled it. He is considered to be a very dangerous sex offender that he was sent to a treatment facility for further observation. To add more, Mark also was convicted already in the past with two rape cases that involved him implementing force in touching three victims, all females. He was only 23 when he was charged rape right on the third degree already. According to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer, he was also guilty of endangering the life of a child for having sexual encounter with a minor female who was only 17 years old then or even younger than that.

The New York Criminal Lawyer who once helped in the case by gathering facts, the victim herself said that she consented on having a relationship with the accused. But things turned out differently when she was always forced to have sex with him even when there are times it was totally against her will. Of course, Mark pushed on the legalities of their relationship but the lawyers defended that it was still illegal. He also said that he has the knowledge she was 17 but not anymore younger than that.In another scenario, same accused was charged of touching an 18-year-old employee by force as he simply gabbed her most sensitive parts.

After the hearing of the case, the court perceived that he falls under the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 which involves getting him checked in inside a treatment facility. It was Joel Lord who handled all his examinations with the help of the Office of Mental Health. The results of all the tests all point out one thing that he has the appetite for sex with females who do not offer consent. The entire court then and the Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer who handled the case back then agree to the decision and findings that Mark is suffering from a mental sickness. In most of his cases, majority of those were nonconsensual all discovered by listening to the recounted facts shared by the victims. The court gathered up all the necessary opinions and findings done professionally to conclude that Mark truly needs help as to help him put a stop to his continuous acts of sex crimes.

It is possible for anyone of us to help our society lessen the sex crimes or abuse that most of our women and children are suffering from these days. We can start by checking out the assistance and guidance of the best Queens Sex Crime Lawyer. It is where you can find credible and all out assistance of the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. By helping each other out, we can make our society a better and safer place to live in.

In September 2000, Darrin Higgens was accused of sexually abusing his 16-year-old daughter and having sex with one of her 15-year-old friends. Police arrested Mr. Higgens and after reading him his Miranda rights, he signed a written statement attesting to the fact that he may have had sex with his daughter while drunk. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer reported that he was subsequently charged with 120 separate crimes, including multiple first degree sodomy charges, first degree rape charges and endangering the welfare of a child.

At the conclusion of Mr. Higgens’ trial, 88 of the 120 counts were submitted to the jury. He was convicted of two counts of third degree rape, incest, seven counts of endangering the welfare of a child and two counts of third degree sodomy. His criminal defense attorney filed a motion to set aside the verdict, which was denied. Mr. Higgens was sentenced to an aggregate term of 5 1/3 to 16 years. He subsequently appealed his conviction to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division.

Mr. Higgens’ defense attorney argued that he was denied the right to confront his accuser and that counseling records indicated that the victim was disruptive and troubled. The defense also claimed that at the time the victim testified, she was taking medication which would lead her to appear more credible. The trial court refused to admit these records into evidence, arguing that the victim’s mental status was not at issue. The appellate court agreed with this decision.

A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer explained that the court held that the testimony allowed at trial was sufficient to prove that the victim failed to report the abuse on prior occasions when she was receiving counseling. The trial court allowed the social workers who spoke with the girl to testify that they treated her, Mr. Higgens and the girl’s mother. Defense counsel took issue with the fact that the social workers never reported any crimes or suspected abuse. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in preventing Mr. Higgens from confronting his accuser.

The appellate court also rejected Mr. Higgens’ claim that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of prior crimes for which he was never charged involving his daughter and her friend as well as testimony concerning a history of suicide in Mr. Higgens’ family. Defense counsel claimed that the evidence essentially implied that Mr. Higgens was an out-of-control, manipulative individual who used drugs to commit inappropriate sex crimes against his own daughter and another minor. The appellate court argued that the evidence presented concerning eight prior uncharged sex crimes involving the victim and her underage friend was admissible as it was relevant to establishing the element of forcible compulsion and to shed light on the relationship between Mr. Higgens and his daughter. The evidence relating to a history of suicide in the family was also held to be relevant to the element of forcible compulsion since the victim testified that she complied with Mr. Higgens’ requests because he had threatened suicide if she did not. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in allowing this evidence to be introduced.

Finally, the appellate court also rejected Mr. Higgens’ claim that the trial court committed an error in allow the prosecution’s expert to testify as a rebuttal witness regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. The expert offered only general testimony about the syndrome and did not attempt to offer any proof or speculation that the charged crimes had occurred. Again, the appellate court found that no error was committed on the part of the trial court in allowing the testimony. According to a Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer, the court chose to affirm Mr. Higgens’ original conviction.

While Mr. Higgens’ appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, his attorney did offer some interesting arguments to the court regarding his case. Rape, sexual abuse and sodomy are all serious crimes and no one should attempt to stand trial for these charges without the aid of skilled legal counsel.

If you or someone you love has been charged with a sex offense in the New York area, you need to contact the law firm of Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Our team of criminal defense attorneys is committed to aggressively defending individuals who are on trial for sex crimes and inappropriate sexual acts involving minors. Call 1-800-NY-NY-LAW today to speak with a member of our staff or visit one of our New York area offices to discuss your case in person. Don’t let a sex offense conviction ruin your life. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates now to get the experienced legal representation you need to protect your rights.

Rape cases are very sensitive and contain intricate in details. It requires a lot of evidence and consistency in the chain of events involved in the case. This goes the same for this case against Santos Quinto who was accused of raping a 19 year old who eventually got pregnant. The victim said that she first had sex with her full consent with her high school classmate in November 8, 2002. But after five years, when she was 19 years old already, she filed another police report that her step grandfather who is the accused mentioned was the one who raped her.

She explained to a New York Criminal Lawyer that it happened three times way back in 2002 but the problem arises with her decision to have not reported it when the crime was still fresh then. Even if this delay was questioned, such extension is still permitted in some circumstances especially for some sex crimes that are made to innocent children. A medical report that the victim went through revealed that she was pregnant.

According to the police and Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer who questioned her, her first statement stated that she had sex with her classmate and that she just said she was raped because she was afraid that her parents might get angry. At that time, the case came to a close. But by 2007, when she turned 19, she reported that it was her stepgrandfather who raped her for three consecutive times on different dates within the year of 2002. She recalled the story that it happened when she used to live with her grandma and cousins. She was abused three times inside of their own home.

She also confessed that she told her grandmother but she refused to believe her. She did not say anything about the incident when she learned that she was pregnant because the old man threatened her. In such cases of sex crimes extension of time frame is allowed considering that the child is not yet on the mature state of mind if she is younger than 18. Hence, the court can wait up until five years which is applicable with this particular case.

It can be really sad that sex crimes of today revolve around incest. It is devastating to find out that the more responsible family members are the ones who actually abuse the little ones in the family. So the court fully understands how threatened such victims are especially when their abusers are coming from their own familial relations. And if the consensual sex between her and the classmate was really true, it still cannot be deemed as a criminal offense under the Penal Law. One thing is true with this case report. It is important that the one accused should be punished accordingly.

It is not good news to hear that there are families who suffer from such troubles. But in case your very own is going through the same ordeal or you know someone else’s family who does, then do not hesitate to seek the complete assistance of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. You can be assured that your rights will be protected and your case will receive the attention it deserves.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (ICE) arrested a man for intending to engage in sexual acts with two young girls. ICE agents posed as a mother willing to sell her two young girls, ages 5 and 8 to the man, states a New York Criminal Lawyer. The man, who was from Athens, Greece, was arrested by ICE agents after landing in the Denver airport. Since his arrest, he has pleaded not guilty to charges ranging from engaging in illicit conduct to aggravated sexual abuse.
ICE agents stage these kinds of operations all the time to catch sexual predators both online and off. As part of the Department of Homeland Security, ICE not only monitors immigration and customs stations in airports, the agency also works tirelessly to stop the illegal trafficking of children and child pornography. A program called "Operation Predator" was created to catch traffickers before children are harmed. Agents pose as parents, relatives or people involved in "sex tourism" to earn the trust of those interested in purchasing children. "Operation Predator" is a world-wide effort to stop sex trafficking.
Those found guilty of sex trafficking, distributing or purchasing child pornography may face up to 10 years in prison, even if this is their first offense. ICE has partnered with other law enforcement agencies throughout the world to stop the distribution of child pornography. Countries such as New Zealand, Italy, the United Kingdom and Australia have task forces in place to catch these types of criminals.
Since the Internet has made it much easier to send and receive images of child pornography, ICE agents must be more diligent in monitoring and acting when they suspect criminal activity. For example, authorities in New Zealand monitored the exchange of child pornography between a citizen of New Zealand and a citizen of the United States. Thanks to the efforts of New Zealand authorities and ICE, both suspects were arrested and charged, reports a New York Criminal Lawyer. Apparently, over 600 images were sent over the Internet, which was more than enough evidence to arrest and convict the men. The man from the U.S., a substitute teacher, was sentenced to eight years in prison.
ICE currently has 69 offices in 49 countries around the world including New York City and Westchester County. Its mission is to track and arrest those traveling for the purposes of sexually abusing children and to catch those sending images of child pornography over the Internet.

Continue reading "ICE Agents Arrest Man for Aggravated Sexual Abuse" »

A Dallas man is suing the county, the sheriff, and the district attorney after he spent 13 months in jail without access to a lawyer or a court hearing.

The 22-year-old man had been pulled over for a traffic stop. He wished to hide the arrest warrant for violating his parole on a drug charge against him so he used his cousin’s name. He thought the 25-year-old husband and father had a clean record. However, that was not the case; a New York Criminal Lawyer was told.

The cousin also had an arrest warrant with charges of fondling a young relative. The 22-year-old man was arrested, booked, and put into jail.

The 22-year-old man had used his cousin’s name before and the police had the name listed as an alias. They however did not know the cousin was a real person. There were no fingerprints on record for the cousin so they could not compare both men’s prints.

A lawyer had been assigned to the 22-year-old man’s case, but court staff later told him that he already had a lawyer. The 22-year-old man was able to get in contact with his cousin and the cousin turned himself in. He was booked and released on bond. The courts in New York City and also Suffolk County try to make sure that all have proper defense attorneys.

The 22-year-old man had tried several attempts to make the police, the judge, and the prosecution aware of the mix-up. The cousin’s lawyer worked to get the 22-year-old man freed. He requested to see the judge so that they could show a picture of the 22-year-old man to the young relative to determine if he was the same man, according to a New York Sex
Crime Lawyer. When she cleared him, the 22-year-old man was immediately released.

Continue reading "Man sues after being jailed without a lawyer or getting a court hearing" »

A doctor in Hilltown, PA, will stand trial and stands accused of trading pills for sex, a New York City Criminal Lawyer learned. The doctor is also being sued for malpractice for the suicide of an Upper Gwynedd police officer. The doctor is presently free on bond pending a court date that is set for next month.
A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer was also told that the suicide of the police officer is not the only death that has been attributed to the doctor’s dozen or more drug charges. A 31-year old woman reportedly overdosed with more than six different medications in her system that the doctor allegedly prescribed to her the day before she died. The woman had visited the doctor for pills several times, according to sources. Each time all she had to do was to show the doctor her breasts and he would then prescribe her the medication. Some of the drugs the woman had in her system the day she died included Oxycodone, Diazepam, Zolpidem, Amitriptyline, Sertraline, and Carisoprodol. All reportedly prescribed by the doctor. It should be noted, however, that since the district attorney has thus far been unable to link the doctor and the mix of drugs in the woman at the time of her death, he has been unable to charge the doctor with her death.
The Upper Gwynedd police detective who committed suicide was a patient of the accused doctor and had seen him after having shoulder surgery for anxiety. The detective was prescribed Xanax and was in addition to allergy and sleep medication. Over the course of about a month, the doctor increase the officer’s dosage from 1mg to 8 mg, which by all accounts is a large dosage. By the end of March, the detective shot himself while at the police station.
As part of a different investigation, local authorities used both an undercover police officer and an undercover informant to record their transactions with the doctor. This is just what they would do in New York City and Staten Island. Although the doctor asked the informant for sex, he was informed that she would return later. Apparently, it was the police who returned to his office and with a warrant in hand he was arrested.

Continue reading "Doctor on Trial for Trading Pills for Sex" »

Two brothers in Barboursville have pled guilty to copyright infringement on cargo, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer. The men were dealing with cargo that they also stored illegally within the city limits. The men were in the process of having the goods shipped in to another city and then sold for a profit when they were caught in a sting-like operation. The men did not resist arrest and have been cooperating with authorities who are trying the case.
A New York Criminal Lawyer says the men held $360,000 in goods, which was mostly CD and DVDs that were imported from Mexico. The CDs were mostly made from of Spanish music from multiple artists, whose names were not released. There were also DVDs that were pornographic in nature that had a value of close to $65,000. The goods were held in a storage unit within the city that officials were able to trace to the brothers. In New York City and Queens these can be also treated as sex crimes.
The men admitted the material was pirated when they were questioned by police. They turned over books that showed they dealt with people in a multi-state area to sell their goods. The N York Criminal Lawyer claims that close to a million dollars’ worth of transactions were noted in the books that were turned over to them. They may be facing additional charges since multiple states are involved with their operation. They could also strike plea deals if they cooperate and turn over names of other people who were working with them.

Continue reading "Brothers Admit Guilt in Copyright Infringement Case" »

A disgraced former New York City Police Department officer in community-
affairs, has been convicted of groping two women and soliciting oral sex from
another woman. A NY Criminal Lawyer reports that he also has a criminal trial pending for an alleged rape of yet another woman. Judges and juries in New York City and Nassau County are harsh when defendants are found guilty of sex crimes.

He used his position of authority while in uniform as a police officer to commit
sexual crimes. As a police officer in uniform, he would use his authority to gain
the trust of his victims by offering to help and would then commit the sexual
assaults. He was convicted of groping two women that he was supposed to
help. He told both women that he would provide assistance with paper work for
an after-school program for their children. Once earning their trust, NYC Criminal Lawyers say he groped both women thereby committing a crime. The attacks occurred in 2004 and 2008. He was convicted by a jury and one female juror who asked not to be named, used the terms "disgusting" and "scumbag" when referring to the Defendant. Both women testified to the assaults in graphic detail before the jury.

He has also been convicted of soliciting oral sex from another woman who trusted the officer in uniform. He was serving a summons in Riverside Park to the woman when the solicitation took place. He is also facing a charge of rape on another female victim who trusted
the now former police officer.

The former officer is still awaiting sentencing on his conviction for groping the two
women. His sentencing date is scheduled for July. His rape trial is pending.

Continue reading "Former Cop faces rape charges " »