New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

On 9 August 2003, an officer, formerly a detective with the Town of Glenville Police Department in Schenectady County, received a report that a local McDonald's restaurant had been robbed by a man brandishing what appeared to be a handgun and an axe; a handgun crime. That information was distributed to other law enforcement agencies, including the State Police. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer upon learning of the robbery, a police officer (the officer), who was on patrol with his partner, contacted another officer, a senior investigator with the State Police, who then instructed the officer to set up surveillance on defendant's residence and, if defendant appeared, to execute a "felony stop" utilizing extreme caution to ensure officer safety.

The police officer and his partner took up position nearby and, as defendant rolled through a stop sign en route to his residence, he identified defendant, whom he described as a "very distinctive looking individual," as the operator of the pickup truck in question to which the GPS tracking device previously (and validly) had been affixed. The police officer and his partner pulled in behind defendant in his driveway and, as defendant was exiting his truck, drew their weapons, ordered defendant from the vehicle and down to the ground, handcuffed defendant and placed him in the back of their marked police vehicle. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said numerous police officers responded to the scene, including the senior investigator, who instructed another investigator to access the GPS tracking information. While waiting for this information, the police officer observed an axe and a bag of clothing, in plain view, in the bed of defendant's pickup truck.

The GPS tracking information revealed that defendant's pickup truck had been in the vicinity of the McDonald's restaurant at the time of the robbery in Schenectady County; the truck then returned to the Town of Clifton Park, Saratoga County and made a brief stop on Maxwell Road, where defendant apparently was employed, before proceeding to defendant's residence.

Thereafter, defendant was placed under arrest, roughly 35 minutes after he had been detained by the police officer and his partner and transported to the State Police barracks in Clifton Park, where he received his Miranda warnings.

Defendant's vehicle was towed to the State Police barracks, where the officer photographed the axe and clothing visible in the bed of the pickup truck. The officer and others then separately brought two McDonald's employees out to view the axe, each of whom identified it, based upon a distinctive marking on the blade, as the axe they had seen during the course of the robbery. Subsequently, a search warrant was applied for and obtained authorizing a search of defendant's vehicle and place of employment, the validity of which defendant does not challenge, and a black knit ski mask, a black pellet .177 caliber handgun and a quantity of currency were among the items recovered.

Defendant was charged in an eight-count indictment with various theft-related crimes following the August 2003 armed robbery of a McDonald's restaurant in Schenectady County.
A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree, without waiving his right to appeal, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison and five years of post-release supervision, after the County Court denied his request for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing.

Upon defendant's initial appeal to the Court, decision was withheld pending completion of a Mapp/Dunaway hearing to further develop the record regarding, among other things, the circumstances surrounding the application for a search warrant authorizing the installation of a global positioning system (hereinafter GPS) tracking device on defendant's vehicle and that of his live-in girlfriend, the execution thereof and the manner in which the physical evidence sought to be suppressed was recovered.

A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the court concluded that the search warrant authorizing the placement of the GPS tracking device on defendant's vehicle was valid. However, as to the circumstances surrounding defendant's arrest, the manner in which certain physical evidence was seized and the admissibility of defendant's statements to law enforcement officials, the court again concluded that the record had not been sufficiently developed, withheld decision and remitted the matter to County Court to conduct an appropriate hearing.

The aforesaid hearing has been completed; thus, the defendant's appeal.

The crux of defendant's argument on appeal is that he was under arrest from the moment the officer and his partner confronted him in his driveway with their weapons drawn, that there was no probable cause to arrest him at that point in time and, therefore, any subsequent statements made by him or physical evidence seized constitute fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed.

Defendant does not dispute that the officer possessed a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed and, therefore, was authorized to forcibly stop and detain him in the first instance. The question before the Court is whether that investigatory stop ripened into a full-blown arrest. Resolution of this inquiry, in turn, centers upon whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have believed he was arrested if he was in the defendant's position.

Contrary to defendant's assertion, the propriety of an investigatory stop does not hinge upon the precise words or actions employed. Neither the fact that the troopers drew their weapons nor the fact that defendant was handcuffed is dispositive of whether defendant's detention was elevated into an arrest. Indeed, police officers who find themselves in a rapidly developing and dangerous situation presenting an imminent threat to their well-being must be permitted to take reasonable measures to assure their safety and they should not be expected to await the glint of steel before doing so. An investigatory stop may be upheld if the authorities knew that a crime actually had been committed, the total period of the detention was brief, the police diligently pursued a minimally intrusive means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel suspicion quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant and there is no proof of significantly less intrusive means available to accomplish the same purpose. In the court’s view, that standard was met here.

The testimony at the suppression hearing established that the officer knew that a crime, an armed robbery, had occurred. The officer also knew that defendant had a prior history of and currently was under investigation for committing similar crimes and that the suspect in this particular robbery displayed what appeared to be a handgun. Defendant was detained in his driveway for approximately 15 to 20 minutes before the officer arrived and observed the axe in the bed of the pickup truck, and an additional 10 to 15 minutes elapsed before he obtained the information from the GPS tracking device placing defendant in the vicinity of the robbery, resulting in a total detention of 30 to 35 minutes. The record further reflects that the senior investigator diligently pursued the retrieval of the GPS tracking information which, in turn, quickly confirmed the troopers' initial suspicions. Finally, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the troopers could have both responded to the developing situation and safely ascertained whether defendant was involved in the crime under investigation without detaining defendant in the fashion that they did, particularly considering that they had knowledge of defendant's violent criminal history, his previous escapes from custody and his prior stated intention to use a firearm against police officers.

Given the facts, the court cannot say that the mere pat-frisk of defendant undertaken at the scene was sufficient to dispel the troopers' concerns for their safety and/or neutralize the very real threat that defendant posed to them. Notably, neither the officer nor his partner searched defendant's vehicle at the scene and, therefore, could neither rule out the presence of a weapon therein nor, without handcuffing and physically restraining defendant, ensure that he did not have access thereto.

Simply put, the record reveals that the State Police conducted a lawful investigatory detention, fully supported by reasonable suspicion that defendant had been involved in a violent crime, and this detention was not transformed into an arrest when the troopers ordered defendant out of his vehicle, placed him in handcuffs, and secured him for approximately 30 minutes, since each of these actions was justified by the particular exigencies involved in the investigation.

Henceforth, as defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause, his suppression motion was properly denied. The court need not address defendant's fruit of the poisonous tree claims. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates is a law firm with highly trained, experienced and skilled legal counsels. We offer free legal consultations with our legal experts consisting of New York City Criminal Lawyers such as our NYC Arrest Attorneys, NYC Possession of a Weapon Attorneys, among others. Your best interest is our ultimate goal.

Two police officers were patrolling in a police car which they parked near Washington Heights. They were assigned here because the area of Washington Heights was known as a high traffic area for selling drugs especially to people from outside of New York, particularly, from people in New Jersey.

As the two cops were walking, they saw a Cherokee Jeep with New Jersey license plates. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said they saw a Caucasian male park the Jeep and get down from it. They saw him approach a Hispanic looking man who was yelling for the Caucasian passenger of the Jeep to come over to where he was.

As the Caucasian male was walking toward the Hispanic man, he saw the police officer walking toward them. The Caucasian man backtracked and ran to his vehicle, and drove away.

The Hispanic man had his back toward the police officers. He didn’t see them but he saw the reaction of the Caucasian man so he looked behind him. That was when he saw the police officers. They called the Hispanic man over but he kept walking away from the police officer until he started running full speed.

The police officers chased the Hispanic man. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that as he was speeding away, he began taking something out of his jacket pocket. He threw onto a pile of garbage bag what looked to the police officers as a brown paper bag.

As one police officer continued chasing the Hispanic man, the other police officer stopped to retrieve the brown paper bag thrown out by him onto the pile of garbage. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said when the police officer opened the brown paper bag, he saw that it had foil sachets that had a white powder that looked like cocaine.

The other police officer succeeded in apprehending the Hispanic man and placed him under arrest. He was later charged with criminal cocaine sale and criminal cocaine possession. He was arraigned and then after trial, he was found guilty by a jury verdict only of criminal cocaine possession.

The Hispanic man appeals his conviction on the ground that the police had no reason to approach him. They had no reason to chase him and they had no reason to arrest him. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said he claimed that he was only approached by the police on the mere basis that he was Hispanic. He asked that the evidence of the tinfoil sachets with the cocaine by suppressed and not admitted as evidence against him. The trial court admitted the evidence.

The Court then was called upon to decide on whether or not the officers had probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed. If the police officers had probable cause then the evidence obtained during the chase is admissible against the Hispanic man.

The Court held that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that a crime was about to take place: first, the police officers were veterans and they had been assigned to the same general area for three years. They have had experience of drug sales going on in that area and the customers were usually from out of state, mostly from New Jersey. Second, the Jeep that pulled up was a car registered in New Jersey. Third, the man in the Jeep fled when he saw the police approaching. Fourth, the Hispanic man also fled when he saw the police approaching. Fifth, the man threw something out from his jacket pocket which was packed in the same packaging as drugs sold on the street. Sixth, the bag from the man’s pocket was thrown onto a pile of garbage bag on the curb right next to the street; it was in plain and open view. Seventh, when the police officers opened the bag that they retrieved, it confirmed their reasonable suspicion that indeed, a crime was being committed.

The Court found that when the police were about to approach the man, they still had no reasonable suspicion. But when the man in the Jeep ran and then the Hispanic man also ran, that was reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot . This holding is necessary to deal with the reality on the streets.

Were you chased by police officers? Were you arrested for criminal cocaine sale or criminal cocaine possession? You need to be represented by a New York Drug Crime Lawyer. You need a New York City Drug Crime lawyer who can argue in your behalf. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and ask to confer with any of their NYC Drug attorneys. Their NY Drug lawyers are willing and able to assist and defend you. Visist the offices of Stephen Bilkis and Associates in the New York area.

The man was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, in particular of possession of a narcotic drug with the intent to sell and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, in particular of knowing and unlawful cocaine possession with 500 milligrams or more. The man moved to cover up the physical evidence recovered upon his arrest. After the suppression hearing, the trial court denied the man's motion. A Sandoval hearing was also held at which the man sought to cover up his nine prior drug crime convictions.

Consequently, the man proceeded to trial but did not testify. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the evidence adduced at the trial established that the arresting officer saw the man twice, reaching into a brown paper bag and drop vials into an unidentified woman's outstretched hand. The officer, who observed the man from a distance, also testified that it appeared to him as if the man were counting out the number of vials he was depositing into the woman's hand. As the officer approached the man, the woman fled and the man was arrested. The brown paper bag, which contained thirty-one vials, was recovered from the man. Upon analysis of the contents of the vials by police chemists it was concluded that the vials contained 1,591 milligrams of cocaine. The jury acquitted the man of the possession with intent to sell count but convicted him of the fifth degree possession count.

The legislature had decided that persons who illegally possess larger quantities of controlled substances should be punished more severely. The conduct is more repugnant and presents a greater threat to society because drug possession is not a strict liability crime, however, an individual is not deserving of enhanced punishment unless he or she is aware that the amount possessed is greater. A purpose of the knowledge requirement is to avoid over penalizing someone who unwittingly possesses a larger amount of the controlled substance than anticipated.

The appellate division modifies the conviction by reducing it from criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and substitutes a definite sentence of 1 year. The man's sufficiency claim is preserved by his motion at the end of the case. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the man knew that he possessed more than 500 milligrams of cocaine.

The jury rejected the claim that the man was a seller of drugs when they acquitted him of criminal possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. Based on records, the pure weight the man was charged with possessing, transposed to ounces, is .055685 ounce. The amount which exceeds the misdemeanor level is .038185 ounce. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said to conclude that the man could gauge a difference in weight of less than 4 one-hundredths of an ounce, defies all human experience. The majority misunderstand the discussion of comparative weights. It has nothing to do with the potency of controlled substances and it has to do only with the human ability to gauge infinitesimal weights simply by touch, unaided by instruments of any kind.

The majority begins its opinion by reviewing the man's criminal history. What is omitted from the listing is the fact that six of the nine arrests dealt with marijuana alone. Marijuana possession is the subject of an aggregate weight standard and not the pure weight standard which is an issue. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the court of appeals made clear the difference in proofs permissible in pure weight and aggregate weight cases. Further, there is no indication in the record that the man ever previously involved in cocaine possession, the subject of the instant case includes his last arrest, some four and a half years, and prior to the arrest which gives rise to the man’s appeal.

We cannot say that every event in our life is always enjoyable. There are times that we encounter unexpected circumstances such as wrongful accusation from people around us. If you want to prove that you’re innocent of any crime, seek the help of NY Criminal Lawyers. If you got involved with drugs possession, you can ask guidance from the New York Drug Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that on 10 September 1992 evening, two people arrived at the corner of East 213th Street and Bronxwood Avenue in a BMW. Already present were Defendant and seven (7) other people, two of which were brothers. All of these individuals were known to each other, had some type of criminal background. Four (4) of them all sold drugs in the vicinity, with one working for Defendant.

Meanwhile, two other brothers, one went into a nearby restaurant while the other did the same or used a nearby telephone.

Back to defendant, he gave a nine millimeter pistol to one of his companions in a nearby alley. After his companions, the brothers, returned to their vehicle, defendant obtained the gun from one of his companions, walked to the rear passenger side window of a vehicle, and fired ten to fourteen shots, killing the two other brothers; a gun crime. With the exception of one of his companions, all of his companion as well as one other witness, who also had a criminal record, witnessed the incident.

After defendant was arrested, he telephoned one of his companions and told him to tell his trial attorney that, when the shooting occurred, he and the other witnesses observed a brown car circle the block while defendant was merely sitting on a nearby crate. This request was also made to the others. All five men complied. However, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that after a series of shootings in the vicinity, including those in which Defendant, two (2) of his companions and one of his companion’s brother were all victims, the latter two of whom were killed, one of them informed the police that he and two others witnessed defendant murder the two other brothers, and he waited more than two years to inform them because he didn't feel scared of defendant, he thought he was still his friend. Once defendant turned against him he pushed up to this point.

At trial, six (6) of defendant’s companions testified to witnessing him commit the murders.
Furthermore, during the cross-examination of one of the witnesses, defense counsel elicited that he was once arrested for marijuana possession, a drug crime, which was later dismissed, and once received a ticket for drug possession. When the People turned over further case file information, despite having the opportunity to do so, defendant did not recall the aforesaid witness.

On 5 December 1995, defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of Murder in the Second Degree and sentenced to two consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from twenty-five years to life.

Defendant now moves, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Article 440.10, to vacate his conviction on the grounds that: he was denied a fair and impartial jury because a juror was his grandfather's sister's estranged husband; the People failed to disclose that a witnesses had a pending criminal case, allowed that witness to perjure himself, and relied on that testimony; there is a newly discovered evidence in that it is reasonable to conclude that one of the A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said that the people's witnesses committed the murders for which defendant was convicted because he committed a murder in a similar fashion at the same location less than two years later, attempted to murder defendant, and had a motive to commit the murders and frame defendant; and there is a newly discovered evidence in that two of the People's witnesses signed affidavits stating they lied at trial, one of the witnesses admitted committing the murders, the other witness stated that one of the witnesses committed the murders, and another individual filed an affidavit stating that one of the witnesses confessed to him.

The main issue here is whether or not the testimonies presented were sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that defendant did commit the crime charged.

The Ruling of the Court:

In the instant case, the recantations and confession suffer from many defects in that: they are inherently unreliable; they were signed under suspicious circumstances; they were prompted by corrupt and unworthy motives; those recanting were fearful for their lives due to constant intimidation; defendant appeared to have considerable influence over those surrounding the witnesses and the witnesses clearly had a real and founded fear of defendant; the witnesses were surely aware of the murder of the eyewitness who testified in the Grand Jury; one of the witnesses had to deal with the peril attending one labeled a "rat"; the trial testimony was reasonable and probable; the recantations strain credulity; defendant and his friends and family went to great lengths to induce the recantations; the Court was impressed with the demeanor of one of the witnesses; a significant amount of time has lapsed between the witnesses' trial testimony and their recantations; the alleged misconduct by the People was highly implausible; the recantations were inconsistent with the other trial testimony; there appears to be bribery afoot via the actions of one other witness; one witness had to be moved to federal custody due to the danger to his life as a result of his trial testimony; there was no credible reason given for allegedly providing false testimony at trial; and there was no reasonable possibility that the confession and recantations might be true. Indeed, regarding the actions of defendant, his wife, and his cohorts in and out of custody, it is well settled that manipulative conduct of the kind presented in the case should not and will not be rewarded.
In evaluating the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, including their demeanor, one witness (herein referred as the credible witness) was clearly credible not only in his reaffirming his trial testimony, but also his detailed explanation as to why he signed affidavits claiming that he lied at trial and committed the murders for which defendant was convicted. It was readily apparent that these affidavits were both signed not because they were true, but because of the catalogue of threats and harassment he underwent ever since being incarcerated in the state correction system. Indeed, such witness was clearly in a situation by which he had to choose between likely having his life taken and executing the two affidavits. Moreover, on all material matters, the aforesaid witness’ testimony was entirely consistent with the credible testimony of another person. In addition, a Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said that one detective’s testimony regarding his interview was entirely credible and it established, via the photographic array identification procedure, that one of the witnesses (the alleged inmate) never, in fact, met with the witness.
The court finds the other testimonies incredible.

Furthermore, defendant's subsequent motion regarding sanctions against the People is baseless as the Court completely credits the People's explanation as to their discovery of the alleged inmate of the credible witness, and the recorded telephone conversations clearly do not constitute as material as they contain nothing of value. Indeed, despite the assertions of defendant in his motion papers, it is well settled that hyperbole is rarely an effective form of persuasion.

Also, in light of defendant's failure to disclose numerous relevant and important documents prior to the hearing, which both the Court and the People acknowledge were likely oversights, for him to then claim that the People's failure to disclose these meaningless recordings were some type of purposeful, violation is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Indeed, even in submitting the motion wherein this claim was made, Defendant omitted several pages of these allegedly exculpatory recordings. It is also noted that although the Court finds nothing improper with defense counsel's contacting the credible witness, as leave on his direct appeal had not yet been denied when they first met, the better practice would have been to first contact his attorney, especially in light of the fact that the first newly discovered evidence claim directly implicates the conviction he was appealing.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to vacate his judgment of conviction is denied.
To have the best criminal defense attorneys, get in touch with Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our New York Criminal Attorneys, New York Drug Attorneys, New York Arrest Attorneys, etc., have exceptional skills that could very well aid in your defense. Call us now and have a free consultation with the finest legal experts in the countr

Defendant is a New York City police officer who was arrested in a "sting operation" wherein he was made to believe that he was being hired by a drug dealer for the purpose of protecting transported drug money (the fruit of a drug crime).

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the Supreme Court, Queens County convicted him of bribery receiving by a public servant in the third degree, receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree, official misconduct, and computer trespass; a number of criminal law violations.
Defendant appeals the court’s decision.

Defendant contends that the conduct of the police was "so egregious and deprivative" of his due process rights that notwithstanding his failure to establish his entrapment defense, the indictment should have been dismissed; that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crimes of which he was convicted.

Is the defendant correct? Was the defendant denied of his right to due process? Was his guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt?

The court finds the contentions to be meritless.

In the case cited by the defendant, the Court of Appeals held that, in some instances, police conduct, when tested by due process standards, can be egregious and deprivative as to impose upon the court an obligation to dismiss even if the defendant fails to establish the defense of entrapment.

A determination of whether the conduct of the police rose to the aforesaid level of impropriety involves consideration of the following factors: (1) whether the police manufactured a crime which otherwise would not likely have occurred, or merely involved themselves in an ongoing criminal activity; (2) whether the police themselves engaged in criminal or improper conduct repugnant to a sense of justice; (3) whether the defendant's reluctance to commit the crime was overcome by persistent solicitation or other appeals; and (4) whether the police simply sought to obtain a conviction rather than to prevent further crime or protect the populace. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said consideration of these factors shows that the police conduct complained of did not rise to the level requiring dismissal of the indictment.

Here, the police commenced the "sting operation" based upon information provided by an informant, which suggested that the defendant might be involved in criminal activity. Although prior to the sting operation the police did not have any information that the defendant had engaged in criminal activity, the information provided by the informant provided a strong basis for commencing the sting operation.

Moreover, the police did not engage in criminal or improper conduct repugnant to a sense of justice. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant was merely deceived into believing that he was providing protection for transported drug money and that his services would be paid for by the drug dealer. Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer, and the carefully selected use of the contrived crime under appropriately compelling circumstances is not repugnant to a sense of justice.

Further, the defendant was never reluctant to use his status as a police officer to protect the transported drug money and was only afraid of being caught. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant was not tempted with the prospect of exorbitant gain, since he negotiated his fees with the undercover police officer who was posing as the drug dealer who needed protection. Consequently, the defendant was not denied his right to due process.

Accordingly, upon review of the records and evidence presented, the court finds that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence. The judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates is the best law firm in the country. We have offices throughout the City of New York. For a free consultation, contact us and speak to a Queens Criminal Lawyer. If you are faced with a case that is drug related, you may want to speak with a Queens Drug Lawyer from our firm. We have a variety of legal experts with diverse experiences and skill who specialize in a number of fields and who can assist you with your legal problems.

There is a good deal of specific legality, which is involved in cases of gambling or racketeering. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the fact that a person is engaged in a criminal enterprise must be proven. In order for a case to be considered a criminal enterprise, the person must have committed three or more acts that constitute separate and distinct crimes that relate to the same enterprise. The crimes must be separate and able to be tried an convicted on their own without being a drawn out version of just one crime. A crime is not a criminal enterprise if it just takes a long time to commit the one crime. In gambling or numbers operations, it can sometimes be difficult to show that the gambling operation is actually a criminal enterprise.

In one case from 1997, the court arrested several subjects and charged them with conspiracy and operating a criminal enterprise in Queens County. The police alleged that the gambling operation was started around August 15, 1996 and continued until the arrests of the subjects on November 7, 1997. The indictment charged that the defendants in the case were all members of a notorious gambling organized crime ring that was run by the Conigliaro family. The police brought forth evidence that demonstrated that the enterprise was organized in Queens, Kings, and Richmond Counties in the state of New York. It showed that there was a bookmaker, who was in control of ensuring that the operation ran smoothly. There was a controller, who handled the daily business of the enterprise and all of the accounting details. There were several clerks who took the betting information by phone and had runners meet with the bettors each week to settle the accounts.

The defense maintained that the organization could not be convicted for operating a criminal enterprise because their crimes were gambling only. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the pattern of illegal gambling activity was documented from November 1988 to July of 1991. The legislators maintained that illegal enterprises were specifically considered in the written statute to include “syndicated gambling.” The question of law was whether these actions constituted on criminal purpose and objective or not. If it is one purpose and objective, then the case cannot be a criminal enterprise because there has to be three distinct acts.

The prosecutor contends that each individual person who entered and placed bets were individual offenses that prove the case of three or more criminal acts that created the criminal enterprise. Because the overall goal of gambling is the same, it is possible that either or both arguments could hold. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the difference lies in the parties that are involved. It is true that the crime of gambling is considered to be a victimless crime, much like prostitution. Both parties must engage in a criminal act for the act to occur at all. So every time that a bettor entered the establishment, they dealt with the same people who were part of the organization. The defense maintains that it is that consistency that creates a single act with a single goal. The prosecution maintains that each new bettor created a different transaction. Each different transaction was an independent crime. Three or more independent crimes constitute a criminal conspiracy or enterprise.

The Supreme Court justices agreed with the prosecution in that each individual, distinct act of placing a bet was a different incident. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said that engaging in a criminal enterprise can have one continuous common goal, while still maintaining separate and distinct criminal acts that benefit the criminal enterprise as a whole. The ability to decipher the complicated issues that are involved in organized crime cases, it is important to be well versed in white-collar crime and financial crimes.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, our Queens Criminal Lawyers are knowledgeable in defending organized crime cases. We can meet you in convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Our Queens Drug lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through any situation.

Police officers who work drug related crimes require specialized training to ensure that they conduct themselves appropriately while they are performing their duties. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the nature of drug crimes is that it changes frequently. The fluidity of the laws surrounding the actions of the police and prosecutors means that occasionally, the fall behind the law in matters that relate to the arrests and prosecutions of offenders. That means that a person who has obtained a good attorney is more capable in most cases of interpreting recent case law as well as statutory law. One case that helped to define the criteria of modern drug law occurred in January of 1981.

On January 31, 1981, two detectives were in an unmarked undercover vehicle in an area where drug problems had been reported. They were using binoculars to survey the area. They observed a car at 8:15 at night pull up and park on the curb about 100 feet away from them. They watched with their binoculars for several minutes while suspected customers came up to the car and transactions took place. Specifically, what the officers observed was that another car would pull up, and a person would approach the driver of the parked vehicle. A conversation would ensue. Money would be handed to the driver, or the passenger, who was later identified as the defendant’s wife. A small tinfoil ball would be handed to the person out of the car window. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the officers observed the purchaser hold the tinfoil ball to his nose and smell it before leaving. After watching two of these transactions, the officers approached the vehicle and notified the marked patrol backup unit to respond to the location.

The officers handcuffed the driver and his male companion and searched them. They located an envelope of marijuana on the driver’s person. The detectives identified themselves and placed the two male subjects in the back of the detective car handcuffed while they interviewed the additional suspects. When the marked unit arrived and the detective started to transfer the prisoners, they located a clear plastic baggie of angel dust in the driver’s coat pocket. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said one the prisoners were properly searched and placed into the marked unit, the officers checked their back seat and discovered that there were four tinfoil balls of angel dust on the seat of the vehicle. At the precinct, the officers recovered $237 cash from the driver and his wife.

After being Mirandized, the driver stated that he had been selling angel dust and that he had sold ten dime sized balls of angel dust before the officers’ arrival. He stated that the balance of the money that the officers had located on his person was actually his rent money. In court, the detective testified that they had each been narcotics officers for more than a year. One had several years of narcotics experience. He testified that he was familiar with the mannerisms that are often associated with a drug transaction. He stated that a person who is buying angel dust will almost always take the tinfoil ball into his hands and hold it to his nose to smell it. He advised that in his experience, most legal purchases are not conducted in this manner. He further advised that although he was unable to observe what was being transferred to the people who approached the driver’s car, he could tell that it was probably angel dust because of the manner that the buyers conducted themselves. The act of smelling the item in their hands before leaving was the trademark of an angel dust purchase.

The trial court disagreed. They were concerned that the officer had conducted a seizure of the vehicle and persons based on conjecture. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the trial court advised that the officers could not reasonably determine that the transactions that they were observing had anything to do with illegal activity in that what the officers observed was a singularly innocuous act. They stated that merely observing a person approach another person in a parked car was not enough even given the additional actions to constitute probable cause. They maintain that the American freedom to be without illegal searches and seizures are so important that much more would have to be present before probable cause would exist in this type of encounter.

The court stated that the detectives would have to have seen the narcotic substance itself before making an assumption that a drug deal had been or could be in the process of transpiring. The trial court suppressed the evidence and statements made by the suspects on the grounds that the original seizure of the vehicle and persons inside the vehicle was not a legal stop. Since it was not a legal stop, the illegal seizure of the vehicle, created a case for the application of the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule states that any evidence that is seized as the result of an illegal search must be excluded from the court of law during the trial. It is called fruit of the poisonous tree because anything that develops like a fruit on the tree of illegality is inadmissible in court. The prosecution appealed this decision.

The Supreme Court reviewed the issues in question in this case. Specifically under review was the question of whether an experienced narcotics detective given his knowledge, training, and experience, would lead him given the particular set of circumstances in this case; to believe that a crime is, was, or was about to be committed and that the particular suspects were involved in this crime in a substantial manner. This concept is otherwise known as articulable reasonable suspicion and it was determined in the landmark case of Terry v Ohio that it was enough cause for a police officer with experience to stop a person and frisk their outer garments for weapons. However, when the detectives approached the suspects, they were not specifically searching for weapons, they were searching for and ultimately found, evidence of narcotics in the envelope with the marijuana.

Once the marijuana was discovered, there is no question about the probable cause to arrest the subjects. The problem with the search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is that the officers were unable to observe any overt criminal activity from their vantage point. The concern of the trial court was the affront to personal liberty. If the officers were allowed to confront and search every person who stopped on the street to converse with a person in a vehicle, the courts would be opening a Pandora’s Box of civil liberty issues. While the Supreme Court agrees that rampant searches and seizures of innocent Americans is not to be permitted, they were loath to neglect the obvious. The experience of the detective is what led them to recognize a criminal behavior where the average citizen might not have noticed it. That does not mean that the court would allow indiscriminate searches and seizures of persons conversing on the street. It only means that based on the officers knowledge and ability to articulate his suspicions, the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence. The Supreme Court overruled the suppression and readmitted the evidence for trial.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has a group of experienced Queens Criminal Lawyers. In any case that involves Constitutional guidelines, it is important to have an attorney review your case. They have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. A Queens Drug lawyer is the best choice for your defense.

During the armed robbery of a jewelry store in New York City, three men entered the jewelry store and while robbing the store, they hurt and wounded the wife of the owner. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the fourth man was outside, in the van, waiting for his friends. He drove his friends to the jewelry store and drove them away from the premises after they came out of the jewelry store.
The driver was charged with robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree. During the deliberation of the jury, they asked the trial court to explain if the driver of the car could be found guilty of the robbery if he did not know in advance that his friends were going to commit armed robbery. The trial court told the jury that a person who aids in the escape of those who committed armed robbery is equally guilty of the armed robbery.

The jury then also asked if the driver could also be found guilty of the assault even if he did not know and did not participating in the assault of the proprietor’s wife. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the trial judge said that those who participate in the commission of the armed robbery are equally responsible of all those who committed the crime.

The jury found the driver guilty of armed robbery and assault. He was sentenced to a prison term of five to fifteen years for each of the convictions.

The driver appealed his conviction. He claims that he only drove his friends to the jewelry store and drove them away from there. He did not know beforehand that his friends had planned to rob the store when he drove them there. The aid he gave was not intentional and knowing on his part for him to be found guilty of robbery and assault with the rest of his friends who actually committed the robbery.

He also claims that he was wrongfully convicted of assault when he never participated in the assault. The assault was committed spontaneously and not planned beforehand. He could not have known that his friends were going to wound the owner’s wife. He also claims that by the time that his friends had gotten back to his car and rode in it, the assault was finished.
The only question before the Court is whether or not the driver of the car was wrongfully convicted.

The Court found that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding their two questions. The Court held that the issue of whether or not the driver knowingly helped his friends by bringing them to the store and by waiting for them and driving them away to escape with the loot is a question of fact that the jury had to determine for itself. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the jury should have decided for itself if the robbery was still in progress at the time that he drove his friends away from the jewelry store. Also, the question of whether or not the assault continued even after the robbers had already shot the owner’s wife and had gotten into the driver’s car is also a question of fact that the jury should have established.

The trial judge introduced the element of conspiracy when he charged the jury that those who join the commission of a crime are equally responsible for all the acts of the others who were involved in the crime. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the element of conspiracy was never contained in the indictment and was never proved during the trial. The trial judge erred in this as well.

The Court resolved to reverse the conviction of the driver and to remand the case for new trial.
Are you charged with armed robbery and assault even when you unknowingly drove the armed robbers to the scene of the crime? You need a New York City Robbery lawyer to explain to you the charges against you. You need to know your legal options and legal remedies and a New York Robbery attorney from Stephen Bilkis and Associates is willing to explain these things to you. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today. Speak to any of their NYC Robbery attorneys. They are willing to represent you and present evidence in your behalf. Visit any of the NYC Robbery lawyers of Stephen Bilkis and Associates at their offices in the New York area.

On 10 December 1992, near the intersection of Elizabeth and Broome streets in New York County, a robbery occurred during which an individual grabbed a necklace after a brief struggle. Thereafter, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said at the fifth police precinct the victim identified defendant from photographs as the perpetrator.

On 20 January 1993, defendant was arrested for the robbery when he kept his regularly scheduled appointment with his parole officer. At that time, defendant was also carrying seven glassines of heroin, which he allegedly admitted to his parole officer that he was intending to sell.

On 21 January 1993, defendant was arraigned in Criminal Court on a felony complaint charging the crimes of Robbery in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree.

On 26 January 1993, the grand jury indicted the defendant for the crimes of Robbery in the Second Degree and Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, after the District Attorney, for no apparent reason, chose to submit to the grand jury only evidence with respect to the theft of property from the aforesaid victim and none with respect to the later narcotics possession.
In fact, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that no further action was taken with respect to the drug charge until 5 October1993 when the District Attorney, apparently realizing that the robbery indictment might never be successfully prosecuted because of witness unavailability, chose to resurrect the earlier drug charge by submitting evidence with respect thereto to a new grand jury which then voted the instant indictment, charging Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree.

On 1 November 1993, defendant was arraigned on the new indictment.
Thereafter, defendant immediately filed a motion to dismiss alleging that more than nine months had elapsed from the filing of the original felony complaint without the People ever asserting their readiness for trial.

On 14 December 1993, a Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendant's motion was denied without prejudice to renew, holding that the Court of Appeals' reasoning in People v. Sinistaj applied equally to the additional indictment filed as it did to the "superseding" or "replacement" indictments under consideration in Sinistaj.

On the herein motion to reconsider, the court is called upon to review the correctness of the lower court’s ruling concerning the scope of the Sinistaj case.

Defendant moves for the court to reconsider the decision and order the State Supreme Court denying without prejudice to renew his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial.

Under the law, an indictment must be dismissed where the People are not ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action wherein a defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a felony.

It is well settled that a criminal action commences upon the filing of the first accusatory instrument notwithstanding the fact that this instrument may be replaced or superseded by a subsequent indictment during the course of the action.

Therefore, both the robbery and drug possession charges are deemed to have commenced on 21 January 1993, when the felony complaint was filed.

Although the People have incurred substantial time on the robbery indictment, both parties concede that as of the time of the motion to dismiss, six months of includable time had not elapsed. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said both parties also concur that if the time excludable on the robbery indictment is not excludable on the subsequent drug indictment, the latter was time barred when voted.

The People argue again that the rule adopted by the Court of Appeals in People v. Sinistaj governs this case.

On the contrary, defendant also cites Sinistaj, but reads the case to concern only "replacement" indictments, not an indictment for "different" and "new" charges involving distinct criminal transactions.

The Court of Appeals has ruled in Sinistaj that the time excludable on a first indictment was likewise excludable on a subsequent or replacement indictment as long as each indictment was directly derived from the same accusatory instrument.

Here, resolution of the motion requires the court to determine whether the holding in the Court of Appeals ruling applies, where, as here, the charges in the earlier and later indictments, while contained together in the same original accusatory instrument, arise out of separate and distinct criminal transactions.

The court finds that the Sinistaj rule that time excludable on the first indictment is also excludable on any replacement indictment applies only when there is continuity between the crimes charged in the subsequent indictment and those charged in the original indictment and cannot be applied to the indictments herein which involve two entirely distinct criminal transactions.

Here, in no sense, can the drug indictment be regarded as succeeding or replacing the earlier robbery indictment. It did not come into being as a result of some irregularity or defect in the grand jury which voted the robbery or because of some change in the People's theory of prosecution. The drug indictment involves a criminal incident entirely independent of and unrelated to the robbery. In fact, the only connection between the crimes contained in the two indictments is the arrest itself and the fact that the charges therein were originally placed together in the same felony complaint.

Neither crime is admissible or necessary upon the trial of the other. To the contrary, such proof would be prejudicial to a fair trial. Additionally, the robbery offense and the drug offense were based upon different acts and different criminal transactions.

Clearly, the People could have proceeded with the drug possession charge, notwithstanding the status of the robbery case and, none of the delay concerning the robbery indictment which is attributable to the defendant, delay occasioned by defense motions, has any direct application to the drug charge which involves different witnesses and different evidence.

For the same reason, any prior assertions of readiness by the People on the robbery charge are ineffective as to the subsequently indicted drug charge inasmuch as they cannot amount to a bona fide statement of present readiness.

Therefore, should this court now apply the "relation-back" rule of Sinistaj to exclude on the drug indictment all time excludable on the robbery indictment, it would, in effect, permit "joinder" of the two indictments for speedy trial purposes while disallowing such joinder for the trial of the underlying charges. The court declines to read Sinistaj to produce this incongruous result.

The court declines to extend the "relation-back" rule of Sinistaj to the factual circumstances.
Moreover, the First Department has held in one case that the People were limited to retrying the defendant on the charges included in the first indictment. The court reasoned that the "continuity" between the original and the superseding indictment as to the original charges did not extend to the additional charges and that, therefore, the added charges were barred by the speedy trial provisions of the law.

Consequently, there being insufficient continuity between the robbery charge and the drug charge to permit the People to claim the excludable adjournments under the first indictment in calculating the chargeable time under the second indictment, the court dismisses the indictment.

Wherefore, upon reconsideration of the governing case law, the court vacates the earlier order and dismisses the indictment.

For the best New York Criminal Attorneys in the country, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We have offices all over New York City with highly trained, skilled and competitive legal experts. Whether you have been charged with robbery, sex crimes or a theft offense, have a free consultation with a New York Robbery Attorney or a New York Grand Larceny Attorney, among others, from our firm.

On 13 November 1966, defendant shot his divorced wife with a shotgun in the presence of their two daughters in Baldwin, Long Island. A New York Criminal Lawyer said a gun crime has occurred. Immediately thereafter he drove to the Bronx and told a priest what he had done. Thereafter, the priest went with defendant to Nassau County, where he voluntarily entered the police station and gave himself up.

Defendant, after being warned of his Miranda rights, made an oral waiver of such rights and proceeded to make certain statements to the police in response to their questions. During the questioning he admitted that he had shot his wife but added that his gun had accidentally discharged. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said after completing their interrogation, the police officers asked if he would like to sign a statement incorporating his oral statements. Defendant refused to do so until he gets to see a lawyer. He was then asked if he wanted an attorney, and he said, “Yes”.

In the afternoon of that same day, a doctor presented himself to defendant. He said he was there on behalf of the District Attorney and told defendant he did not have to talk to him if he did not want to. The doctor then conducted an examination of defendant which lasted for about an hour and a half.

Subsequently, defendant was charged with murder in the first degree, a criminal charge or a felony.

Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder in the first degree and offered the defense of insanity.

During trial, the defense presented a medical testimony to the effect that defendant was suffering from psychomotor epilepsy.

On the other hand, A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the doctor who conducted the aforementioned examination testified over objection that, based on his examination of defendant, he concluded that defendant was legally sane at the time of the commission of the crime for which he was indicted.

The County Court, Nassau County, convicted defendant of murder in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Defendant appeals the decision.

The issue here is whether the doctor’s testimony of the aforesaid examination is admissible in evidence regardless of the fact that the examination was conducted after the defendant’s request for an attorney.

The court held that it was a prejudicial error for the lower court to have allowed the testimony in view of the constitutional mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona or the Miranda Warnings.

The aforesaid ruling requires that if the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said tat once an accused has indicated he wants an attorney, custodial interrogation must cease and further questioning cannot be initiated by the police, the prosecution or their agents without the presence of counsel or at least until the accused has had an opportunity to confer with an attorney.

Another case decided by the court has similar facts and finds application herein. In that case, the court has reversed a judgment convicting the defendant of murder in the first degree. There, the defendant, after he was indicted and arraigned, was examined by a psychiatrist without notice to the defendant's retained attorney or pursuant to an order of the court and without the defendant's knowledge of the purpose of the examination. There the court stated that since the examining psychiatrist had not been 'appointed by the court or designated by statute to make an impartial and disinterested mental examination of defendant, it cannot be assumed that his examination was conducted in a manner consistent with the constitutional rights of the accused. Instead he must be regarded as a prosecution witness who may have compelled the accused to furnish evidence against himself. The court went on to state that though the psychiatrist had testified as to no inculpatory statements made by the defendant, the psychiatrist also had concluded, on the basis of his examination of the defendant, that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the crime, which conclusion, though not directly incriminating the accused, bore directly on his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The court further stated that notice may be taken that the examination to which defendant was subjected by such witness necessarily involved questioning to which defendant responded by word or action in such a way as to indirectly incriminate himself.

It is in the court’s opinion that the above reasoning applies equally to the instant defendant.
While the defendant at bar was not indicted and represented by counsel, he was in police custody and had requested an attorney. To hold otherwise would be to contravene the very basic constitutional rights. It is axiomatic by now that the privilege against self-incrimination is as broad as the evil it seeks to prevent.

Accordingly, judgment is reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered; the findings of fact are affirmed.

The Miranda warnings are constitutionally guaranteed, required and must be strictly followed without any exception. Those criminally charged are not left without protection. If you are similarly situated as the aforesaid case and you want to learn more of your rights, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Have a talk with our Nassau County Criminal Lawyers or our Nassau County Arrest Lawyers and have a defense like no other. A free consultation is available.

Two men entered a gas station in Long Island on February 18, 1976. With a gun, one of them forced the 16-year old gas attendant to give him all the cash in the till. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the man ordered the boy to kneel down and to face away from them. He then shot the boy who died later.

At the start of the police investigation into the robbery with homicide, the police had no idea as to the identity of the robbers. They received a tip from a woman who was in the same house as the two men. She remembers that on the same night of the murder of the 16 year old boy at the gas station, the two men suddenly left the house because they had a job to do. They came back highly excited and told the woman that they had to shoot someone. This tip was put in the records of the investigation.

One month after the shooting of the 16-year old, the police chased a suspect in a car theft incident. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said two men were involved in the car theft but only one suspect was caught. The police saw the suspect they were chasing: he slowed down the car and threw something out. A week after the car chase, a little girl turned in a loaded gun she found in the place where the chase took place. The police checked the gun and it turned out that it was the same gun that was used to kill the 16-year old gas attendant at the gas station in Long Island.
The police then interrogated the suspect in the car theft who gave chase. He gave the name of his accomplice in the car theft. When the suspect named his accomplice, the police were immediately reminded of the lead they had obtained in the gas station robbery where a 16-year old boy was killed.

The police asked the police in the next county to locate the accomplice and bring him in for questioning. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said police officers went to the residence of the accomplice. His mother answered the door. She informed the police that her son was playing basketball at a park nearby. The police asked the accomplice’s younger brother to accompany them to the park to find his brother. The brother and the mother accompanied them to the park where they picked up his brother and took them to the police headquarters.

The mother stayed near the front desk of the police headquarters while her two boys were taken into the squad room. The police told her that she would be notified when the police officers from Nassau County arrived to question her sons.

The officers from Nassau County arrived and asked the brothers if they were willing to go to Nassau County to talk about an investigation they were conducting. The brothers agreed and they were taken to Nassau County in the officer’s car. They exited the headquarters through a back entrance. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said their mother was not informed that they had been taken to Nassau County.

The mother asked the officer at the front desk about her sons a half hour later and found out that they had been taken elsewhere. The mother proceeded to Nassau County with other family members to find them but she was unable to find them. Her sons had been taken to Mineola. She went to Mineola and asked for her sons. When the police heard that one of the relatives who were with the mother at Mineola was one of the names indicated by the informant, they also invited that other relative of the brothers for questioning.

The relative of the two brothers confessed to the crime of robbing the gas station in Long Island and of shooting the gas attendant.

The confession of the relative became the basis for the charge of manslaughter and robbery. He requested a hearing on his motion to suppress the confession he made. The motion to suppress was denied. He pleaded guilty. He was sentenced. And the only issue for review is whether or not his confession should have been suppressed.

The Court held that since the accused were minors, the presence of their mother was necessary so she could take care of their interests. The police should not have interfered with the communication between the suspects and their mother.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates have New York City Gun Crime lawyers who can help you. You may call and confer with any of the New York Gun Crime attorneys from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. They can give you advice and they can represent you. Call them today for your free consultation.

Two counties of New York entered into a contract with a Catholic charitable group to provide residential domestic services. In October 1988, a woman contacted the charity asking their help to escape the domestic violence perpetrated against her by her husband.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the woman was afraid of her husband and she needed a safe place to go. All the residential facilities operated by the charitable organization were full. The employee of the charitable group suggested that she go to a shelter in the next county but the woman did not want to go so far away.

The employee of the charitable organization then contacted social services and asked for their approval to place the battered woman in a motel. The employee drove over to the house of the woman and picked her up and took her to the motel. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she battered woman was bruised and intoxicated. The employee of the charitable organization volunteered to drive the woman to a hospital but she refused.
While the battered woman was all alone in the motel room, her husband came looking for her. He knocked on the woman’s door and the woman thought that the employee of the charitable organization had returned. There was no peephole on the door and there was no chain lock. The woman opened the door and screamed to see that her husband had found her.

The man pushed his way into the room, and then he assaulted and raped his wife. When the employee of the charitable organization returned the next morning, the wife informed her of the assault and the rape.

The woman then filed this complaint against the charitable organization, the motel owner and the county for damages. A Nasau Sex Crimes Lawyer said she alleged that their negligence rendered her more vulnerable to the attacks of her husband by which she suffered.

The defendants filed motions for summary judgment asking for the dismissal of the complaint. The only issue before the Supreme Court was whether there exists a cause of action.

The Court ruled that the victim of domestic abuse did not have a cause of action against the motel owner. Innkeepers and landlords have a duty to exercise reasonable caser and take precautions to safeguard and protect their guests and tenants against foreseeable criminal acts of third persons. The motel owner proved that although its doors had no dead bolt, no security chain and no peephole, there was a curtained window next to the door through which the guest can look through to see who was knocking on her door. The motel owner also proved that there were no prior criminal activities ever recorded or observed to have occurred in their motel. So they had no prior notice of any foreseeable criminal activities.

The Court also granted the motion for summary judgment of the county. It ruled that the municipality cannot be held liable for injuries to an individual without any proof that there was a special relationship between the municipality and the injured woman here. The municipality did not assume any duty to protect the injured woman. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said there were no contacts between the injured woman and the employees of the municipality and the employees of the municipality made no promise to act on which the injured woman relied on.

The Court denied the charitable organization’s motion for summary judgment. The Court ruled that the charitable organization was an independent contractor of the municipality and they were tasked to provide domestic violence services. The woman had sufficiently proved that there were material issues of fact that must be tried before a jury to determine the liability of the charitable organization.

A New York City Domestic Violence lawyer can help secure a temporary order of protection against an abusive husband or partner. Legal counsel can also present evidence and arguments to extend a temporary order of protection. Best of all, a skilled lawyer can help you claim damages against your abusive spouse or partner who committed acts of domestic violence against you and caused you injury. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates, ask for the assistance of any of our experienced lawyers to obtain compensation against your abusive spouse or partner for the injuries you sustained. Stephen Bilkis and Associates have offices in the greater New York area.

On 21 May 2002, plaintiff commenced the action. The parties were married on 24 January 1992, in Brooklyn, New York. The husband is 37 years of age and the wife is 46 years of age. The parties have two (2) children, a son born on 31 March 1988, and a daughter born on 27 September 1995. The husband is a business and property owner. The wife is a homemaker and factory worker.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the parties were born in the Country of Ecuador and knew each other in Ecuador prior to coming to the United States. The wife was previously married to the husband's cousin who subsequently died. It is undisputed that the husband also knew the wife's two (2) brothers who were the subject of testimony in the instant matter.

When the wife immigrated to the United States in 1987, she did so without permission to permanently reside in the United States and was in the company of her now deceased husband. It appears that the husband and wife herein and the wife's husband at that time, moved into a two-bedroom apartment which was also occupied by other individuals from Ecuador.

The husband claims that he has a partial grade school education from Ecuador. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he first worked as a restaurant dish washer and delivery person. Eventually, he learned to cook and drive an automobile. The husband asserts that although his income was not substantial, his expenses were minimal. For example, his share of the rent at that time was $120 a month. It is undisputed that the wife is presently a recipient of public assistance on behalf of the two (2) children of this marriage.

The wife asserts that she does not speak or write English but her husband is well versed in English notwithstanding the fact that he used an interpreter during the trial. This court notes that in court appearances prior to the trial there was never a Spanish interpreter requested for the husband and, in fact, during the course of the trial the husband often answered questions in English before the translation began.

The parties have been separated since May 2001 when the Family Court issued a temporary order of protection ordering the husband to stay away from the wife, children and the marital residence. The wife asserts that she was the victim of severe domestic violence. However, the husband postures that the trial testimony of the wife's daughter from another relationship reveals that the domestic violence which was imposed upon her mother was not as severe as the wife would like the court to believe. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the husband asserts that he was good provider for the wife. Despite this contention, the domestic violence that was imposed upon the wife resulted in a Criminal Court order of protection, after a violation of an underlying order of protection.

The wife argues that this finding, together with the husband's purposeful lack of obtaining a green card on the wife's behalf while securing a green card for himself and the wife's daughter, would warrant this court entering a finding of egregious conduct.

The husband testified that he and his wife are in good health however the wife asserts that her health is poor. She is seven (7) years older than her husband and claims she suffers with constant headaches, memory loss and is fearful of leaving her apartment alone; all of which she believes are a result of the domestic violence she endured. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the wife does not refute the claim the husband is in good health. The husband argues that the wife's health claims are specious particularly in light of the fact that she is able to work in a factory and in the wife's sister's restaurant.

On 20 June 2002, a Family Court order of child support was issued through the Family Court Child Enforcement Unit, directing the husband to pay $40 each week as and for child support.
On Custody and Visitation:

Upon consent, custody of the parties' daughter who is ten (10) years of age is awarded to the wife. The parties' son's 18th birthday was 31 March 2006, thus, no award of custody or visitation.

On Maintenance:
It is well settled that the amount and duration of maintenance is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court

In awarding maintenance, "the court must consider the reasonable needs of the recipient spouse and the pre-separation standard of living in the context of the other factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law, which factors include " the standard of living of the parties during the marriage, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of marital property, the duration of the marriage, the health of the parties, the present and future earning capacity of both parties, the ability of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting, and the reduced or lost lifetime earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance'. One of the purposes of an award of maintenance is to encourage economic independence. A court is not bound by a party's account of his or her own finances, and where a party's account is not believable, the court is justified in finding a true or potential income higher than that claimed.
In awarding maintenance herein the court must consider the fact that the husband has caused the wife to be placed in a state where her immigration status is, to say the least, vulnerable, while at the same time protecting his own immigration status, and even that of the wife's daughter. This, when combined with the credible testimony of the overt physical and verbal domestic violence leads the herein court to believe that the husband intentionally neglected to take the steps necessary to assist the wife in obtaining legal immigration status in this country as a means of exerting power over her.

It is clear that the husband believes that the incidents of domestic violence which have been imposed upon the wife by him are limited. In a somewhat naive view, he believes that by testifying that the acts of domestic violence were far and few between or that the wife's daughter's testimony that he was a good provider would obviate the effects of domestic violence upon this woman or minimize the effects of domestic violence on the wife.

It is the court's impression that the violent behavior exhibited by the husband was often accompanied by his intoxication. The violence has clearly been substantiated by the testimony of the wife and her daughter.

The husband is a United States citizen who is a successful businessman and owner of multiple properties with a source of steady income, juxtaposed to the wife who is an immigrant without legal immigration status, a victim of domestic violence who fears for her health, welfare and safety, with no command of the English language and she has a very limited education. The husband does not assist the wife in obtaining legal immigration status. The court notes that although the husband suggests the wife must not need more money since she does not receive public assistance, it is evident that the wife's immigration status, at present, prevents her from being a recipient of public assistance and from obtaining employment.

It was clear that the husband's knowledge and understanding of the English language was far greater than that which he was willing to concede. The trial was the very first time in this litigation process that the husband requested an interpreter. Although, complex words utilized in a trial could warrant him requiring an interpreter, he spoke English quite well, answered questions long before the interpreter would even begin translation and had to be reminded to continue to use the court interpreter if he needed interpreter services.

On the contrary, the wife's knowledge of the English language was severely limited and understanding pivotal words and their meanings, even in Spanish, was far beyond her capabilities.

It must also be noted that while the husband has been able to integrate into American society and may remain in the United States as a legal citizen, the wife has not been able to adequately integrate. She lacks the skill of understanding or speaking the English language as well as any marketable skills other than the piecemeal factory work which she admits she had done in years past. The wife's economic prospects for self-sufficiency and entering the mainstream workforce are highly improbable.

Accordingly, the court believes that maintenance should be non-durational. This is necessary based on the length of the parties marriage, their age, the vast difference in their actual income earned and the wife is unequipped to become self-supporting due to her lack of education and inability to speak English. Additionally, although expert testimony was not introduced, the wife testified to severe headaches and memory loss as a result of the multiple beatings the wife endured. The husband is in good health. The wife's mental state is also a health issue. The prospects of her obtaining significant employment which would allow her to become self-supporting, is limited at best. In awarding maintenance, the court is aware that the wife presently has no medical coverage and is not eligible, at the present time, to receive any medical coverage and, therefore, any cost for medical assistance must be borne solely by the wife. Thus, the court awards $ 125 each week as non-durational maintenance, retroactive to the date of first application. The maintenance is not deductible to the husband given his failure to properly claim his cash income. On the other hand, the court finds it inappropriate to award the husband a tax benefit given his years of thwarting that very system. The arrears are to be paid at a rate of $25 a week.

On Child Support:
Section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law of New York provides guidelines by the Child Support Standards Act ("CSSA") which must be considered in ascertaining child support.
The court rejects the argument put forth by the husband that the court is bound to accept that which was agreed to by the Child Support Enforcement Team in the Family Court. The Family Court order provides for child support in the amount of $40 a week. Such amount is inadequate to prevent the children from becoming a public charge. Therefore, an upward modification is warranted. Also, given the finding that the court is imputing income to the husband upon the basis of his unreported cash income, the herein court must recalculate child support. The testimony adduced at trial demonstrates the husband's representations of his assets and income is patently fraudulent. The economic interests of the Department of Social Services as assignee of the benefits are different from an award of child support and maintenance de novo.
Among the factors to be considered in whether there has been a change in circumstances warranting an upward modification of support are the increased needs of the children, the increased cost of living insofar as it results in great expenses for the children, a loss of income or asset by a parent or substantial improvement in the financial condition of a parent and the current or prior lifestyles of the children. While an increase in the noncustodial parent's income is a factor which may be considered in deciding whether to grant an upward modification of child support this factor alone is not determinative.

Clearly, there is a substantial change of circumstance in that the husband's earnings reported to the Family Court and his actual earnings determined by this court, after a full trial on the issues of inter alia equitable distribution and maintenance, are substantially incompatible and this court is making an award of maintenance. Since maintenance is deductible from the husband's gross income for the purposes of child support, this court must recalculate the child support obligation. The discovery of this income and assets during this divorce action and not revealed in the Family Court is a basis to recalculate the husband's child support obligation.

On Equitable Distribution:
In recognizing a marriage as an economic partnership, the Domestic Relations Law mandates that the equitable distribution of marital assets be based on the circumstances of the particular case and directs the trial court to consider a number of statutory factors listed in Domestic Relations Law.

Accordingly, some of the assets owned by the husband were awarded to the wife.
For legal advice on matters of domestic violence, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We provide free consultation with our New York City Domestic Violence Attorneys and our New York City Criminal Attorneys. Our lawyers are highly trained, experienced and have exceptional litigation skills when it comes to cases of domestic violence.

The appellant in the case is Vicki Trees. She is a juvenile and is represented by her parents, Jerry L. and Jewell Trees. The appellee in the case is the K-Mart Corporation located in the town of Lake Park in Florida. Additional appellees in the case are Frank Cardinal, Frank Helm, and Paul Friedman.

Appeal

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said Vicki Trees was a plaintiff in a false arrest and malicious prosecution suit. She is appealing the verdict of the case, stating that the original trial court admitted evidence improperly that showed her participation in a collateral crime.

Original Case

Ms. Trees, who was 17 at the time of the case, worked at K-mart as a cashier. Ms. Trees was arrested for shoplifting when a customer at the store was caught switching the price tags on items and claimed that Ms. Trees was part of the scheme. Ms. Trees was removed from the store in handcuffs by the police. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she was then taken to the police station where she was fingerprinted, booked, and charged with the crime of shoplifting. At the same time the customer who accused Ms. Trees of being a part of the scheme recanted her statement. The charges for shoplifting against Ms. Trees were then dropped. Ms. Trees then sued for being falsely arrested and prosecuted maliciously. The original jury in the case returned with a verdict in favor of the defense and now we have this appeal.

The principal claim made by Ms. Trees is that there was an error committed by the circuit court when they allowed evidence from a collateral crime to be submitted. About two years before the incident at K-mart, Ms. Trees was arrested for shoplifting at J. Byrons. She was booked by the police and served time by attending counseling sessions at Division of Youth Services. The defense counsel reasoned that the incident was relevant in this case for the issue of damages as Ms. Trees was seeking compensation for the stress disorder she stated was triggered by the second charge. A Nassau Sex Crimes Lawyer said the counsel made the argument that the lack of emotional problems from the first incident as well as the similarity of the arrests helped to disprove the current claim.

Case Discussion

The trial court found that the similarity between the two cases was sufficient for the evidence to be submitted in this particular case. In collateral crimes the test for evidence to be submitted is relevance. There are two forms of relevance, legal and logical. In this case the evidence is attempting to prove whether or not Ms. Trees had suffered any type of stress disorder from the second arrest and if she had suffered from a similar stress disorder after the first arrest. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said it was found that it was logically relevant to use the first case of shoplifting and arrest to determine whether or not her present claim for damages is true.

Case Verdict

In this particular case we have looked over the evidence as it has been provided to us and we feel that Ms. Trees has not sufficiently demonstrated an abuse of discretion for the submitting of the particular evidence into the case.

After careful review of all the remaining appeal issues, we affirm the previous judgment in the case.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers several offices throughout New York City for your convenience. You may contact us at any time when you are in need of legal advice. We will be happy to set up a free consultation to determine what your next step should be legally.

Search and seizure incidents, especially those that involve gun crimes or other weapons usually come down to issues of legal precedent. A New York Criminal Lawyer that means that officers have only seconds to decide what their actions are going to be. The courts have months to dissect these actions and make determinations of what the officer should have done in that second or two decision. Because of this, it is not unusual for seizure of weapons to be ruled illegal and excluded from court under the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule states that any item, person, or other object, which is seized by illegal means, is excluded from court. Any item, person, or other evidence that is implicated following the illegal act is also inadmissible in court because it is fruit of the poisonous tree of the illegal means.

In some situations, the rulings do not agree with the law. In some situations, the rulings are completely unrealistic. In both of these circumstances, the court of appeals is called in to correct the injustice. The case at hand is one of those cases.

A police patrol officer was on patrol in Nassau County, New York and observed a subject intentionally impeding the normal flow of traffic. The officer watched as the man turned to walk away. He saw a clip in the man’s back pocket and a metal portion of some object sticking out of the top of the pocket. The officer knew based on his knowledge, experience, and training as a law enforcement officer that the object was either an illegal gravity knife, or an illegal firearm.

The officer turned his car around and attempted to stop the man. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the man continued to walk away without turning around. The officer told him to stop and the man continued walking. At that point, the officer reached forward, snatched the weapon out of the man’s pocket, and placed him under arrest. The object turned out to be an illegal gravity knife and no gun crime had been committed. However, the subject was placed under arrest for the illegal gravity knife. He was placed in the back of the patrol car and transported to jail. On the way down the road, the man stated that he only had the knife because he was afraid that someone he knew was trying to kill him.

The subject was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and unlawful possession of a knife. He made a motion to suppress the evidence of the knife and any statements that he made to police because he stated that the officer’s search of his person was an illegal search. His contention is that the officer had no right to take the knife from his pocket. He contends that the officer could not have known that the object in his pocket was an illegal knife.

A Mapp/Dunaway hearing was held which looks into the allegations of illegal searches and seizures as well as the admissibility of the statements. The judges stated that the police officers action of taking the knife from the pocket was not justified because the officer testified that he had taken the weapon while the subject was walking away. The officer testified that the weapon had placed him in fear for his safety. A Nassau Sex Crimes Lawyer said the judge ruled that the officer was not in fear of his safety because he did not have his gun drawn. This is a ridiculous statement. A police officer would not have a job if he or she pulled their gun out every time that they were placed in fear. Besides that, had the officer had his gun in his hand, he would not have had a hand to remove the weapon from the defendant without using force. The judge, however, ruled that the officer was not in fear and that he should have stopped the subject and spoken to him to see if he would make furtive actions toward the weapon. Only then should he have frisked the man and seized the weapon. The reality check for this decision is that if the man had reached for the weapon, he might have been killed by the police officer.

On appeal, the state won a reversal of that judge’s opinion based on the facts stated above. It was determined that the officer took the path of least resistance in this case. He opted to remove the threat of violence to his person without a full Terry Frisk, which would have been more personally invasive than his merely taking the weapon from the man’s pocket. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the court found that this officer took the necessary steps to deescalate the situation. Had he taken the steps indicated by the judge in the first hearing, there is little doubt that the situation would have escalated and someone likely would have been injured.

It is understood in most situations that an officer has the right to frisk the exterior of any person’s clothing if they have articulable suspicion. That means that in that officers training and experience, he believes that a crime is afoot. The landmark case that established the police officer’s right to frisk a subject for weapons was Terry v Ohio. That case demonstrated that a police officer given their knowledge and experience may notice that a crime is afoot when an average person may not notice the situation is dangerous. In Terry, the officer noticed three men casing a convenience store. They were wearing clothing that was not seasonal. They were acting in a furtive fashion looking in the windows of the store and returning to discuss things together on the corner. The officer approached them and patted down their outer garments because he suspected that they were concealing weapons. The unseasonal clothing was only useful for concealing weapons and the officer was correct. He retrieved an illegal handgun from Mr. Terry. Mr. Terry appealed and lost his appeal. This landmark case made it possible for an officer to pat down and then remove any item that they think might be a weapon that could injure them. The pat down is for the officers own safety.

The question was that since the officer in this case, did not pat the pocket before removing the knife that the search was an illegal seizure and not protected under Terry v Ohio because the judge did not believe that the officer was in fear because his gun was not drawn. The appeal justice also made note that he did not think that the officer was placed in fear, but that the lack of fear in itself did not preclude the fact that he recognized the item in the pocket to be a weapon and he chose to act in a prudent fashion to remove it. Since he could identify the threat based on the clip and the portion sticking up, there was no need to pat the pocket first. Indeed that act might have elicited a violent reaction from the suspect and lead to someone becoming injured. The seizure of the knife did not involve a physical restraint of the subject and was less physically intrusive, a lesser breach of his privacy, than a frisk.

It is important that anyone who feels that they have been seized illegally for a criminal offense contact a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer. A Nassau County Arrest Lawyer can help protect your rights and help you decide if you want to make any statements.

Domestic violence is a big problem in the world today. It is an even greater problem when it involves the very police officers who are impressed with the responsibility to protect the citizens from these crimes. In the face of this issue, many states have enacted reporting guidelines that affect police officers in domestic violence situations personally.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said any peace officer who engages in any act of domestic violence will lose their certification as a police officer. It will end their careers. It is because of this that most police officers are very careful to not engage in any act that could be perceived as an act of domestic violence.

In March 1998, a ten-year veteran police officer was admitted to a psychiatric hospital suffering from depression and suicidal ideation. She was out of work for several months and then returned to light-duty. Light duty relieves the officer of the expectation of carrying a weapon. She remained on light duty until September of 2001. After that, she was unable to return to work at all. In 2003, she requested that the police department allow her to retire under full duty disability retirement benefits. She stated that she was permanently disabled due to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The judge denied her request. She then filed an appeal requesting a hearing and a redetermination of the essence of her case. A hearing was held and the Hearing Officer upheld the denial of retirement benefits. She filed another appeal.

Her claim is that she has difficulty dealing with friends and coworkers. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she testified that she had engaged in a romantic relationship with another officer and that she had been the victim of domestic violence during that relationship. She stated that when she was expected to handle domestic violence calls, she would suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder to the degree that it made it impossible for her to perform her work responsibilities. She also claimed to be suffering from depression as the result of the death of her nephew. A psychologist who testified in reference to her illness testified on the stand.

The psychologist explained that it was impossible for him to say which came first, the depression or the problems at work. Clearly she is dealing with trouble at work. This can lead to depression. The psychologist just cannot tell if her problems at work were due to her depression affecting her condition and employment; or if her work created the depression. Either way, there is no apparent causal link between her work and her disability. She was diagnosed with major depression to the degree that she is unable to perform her duties as a police officer any longer. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the problem is that the psychiatrists who examined her state that many of her depression issues were caused by external factors around her home life. They felt that there was more of a possibility that her depression was the result of the incidents that were occurring around her home.

The New York State and Local Police and fire Retirement System had her examined by one of their own psychiatrists who relayed the exact same statements. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said that it is impossible to determine if her clinical depression was the result of her problems at work, or the problems in her life as a totality caused the depression. Because the court finds that the woman was not definitively injured at work, she is not eligible for retirement benefits. In order for this woman to have been able to file for retirement, the retirement ruling is based on an accident that had occurred at work or related to work. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates the ability to have a Criminal Lawyer who has convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Do not lose your rights after a Domestic Violence arrest. Our NY Family Violence Lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations. Without an New York Domestic Violence Lawyer, you could lose your rights and your freedom.

On March 10, 1987, a man was convicted of burglary in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, tampering with a witness in the third degree, criminal trespass in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglary tools and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said he immediately filed an appeal requesting that his conviction be reversed.

He contends that the trial court committed an error when they refused to allow the defendant to present evidence that he felt was exculpatory to his case. His contention was that his ex-girlfriend, who testified against him was not a reliable witness. He stated that although in trial, she had testified that she was no longer using drugs, that was a lie. He contends that at the time of the trial, she was still using drugs and that the needle marks on her arms were proof of that fact. He states that her testimony that she witnessed the burglary and then he threatened her if she ever told on him was not trustworthy because of her addiction. He further maintained that criminal trespass is a lesser included offense to the felony offense of burglary. He stated that since it is a lesser included offense, that he should not have received a sentence on it separate from the burglary. On this one contention, the justices agreed and reversed his conviction for criminal trespass.

As far as intimidating a witness, the facts of this count of his conviction are uncontested. Directly after committing the offense, the man threatened her about telling anyone what he had done. He intimated that she would encounter violence if she ever told anyone about the burglary. The defendant contends that this threat does not constitute intimidation of a witness because she was not a witness against him at the time. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the offense had occurred after his arrest, then he would have been guilty of attempting to influence a witness. Since it did not occur after the arrest, but before it, he was not intimidating a witness. The justices agree. This count of the charges are overturned and vacated.

On his other contentions, the justices were not so generous. They determined that the prosecution had proven in court that the fresh needle marks on the woman’s arms were from medical tests that had been performed in a doctor’s office and were not from illicit drug crimes. The defendant therefore does not have a valid claim in this regard. They also determined that the defendant’s contention that one cannot commit the crime of burglary without burglary tools was interesting, but not convincing. The justices decided that in this case, burglary tools, was not a lesser included offense of burglary. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the reason that they made this determination was because a person can be charged with possession of burglary tools completely independent of any conviction of burglary and vice versa. Because of this, the justices decided that the conviction for possession of burglar’s tools and criminal possession of a weapon would remain intact.

Many times a person is charged with all of the lesser-included offenses as well as the more serious felony charges. The reason for this is to give the prosecutorial team, something to bargain with. When a person is convicted, it is rare that a jury will convict him of all of the lesser-included offenses as they did in this case. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the appeals court was correct in revising his sentencing. The intention of the law is not to “stack” cases on a defendant, but to allow that the person met the criteria for arrest on that crime, and to have the attorneys determine if the elements of the crime preclude the conviction on the lesser included offenses.

t is important that anyone who thinks that they have been charged with a drug crime, sex crime, or theft charge contact a Queens Criminal Lawyer. A Queens Drug Lawyer can help protect your rights and ensure that you receive a fair trial.

On 21 August 2006, petitioner applied for a premises residence handgun license. In the application, petitioner conceded that he had been arrested, and attached a copy of his plea agreement and a notarized explanation regarding the circumstances underlying the arrest.
On 20 March 2007, respondent as the Statutorily Designated Handgun Licensing Officer and as the Police Commissioner of the City of New York advised petitioner that the application had been disapproved for the following reasons: was issued a summons for disorderly conduct; was issued a traffic ticket for improper cell phone use; was arrested for speeding and driving with a suspended license; license was suspended as a result of receiving 3 speeding tickets within an 18 month period. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the said circumstances cast grave doubt on the petitioner’s moral character in obeying the rules and regulations of a government agency.

Petitioner timely appealed the disapproval to the Director of the License Division but was denied. It found that petitioner’s: arrest history, history of moving violations and the history of domestic violence incidents made him an unacceptable candidate for a handgun license.
Petitioner subsequently commenced this special proceeding to annul and vacate respondent's denial on grounds that respondent failed to weigh the positive aspects of his lifestyle and background against the negative, failed to recognize that Petitioner's violations of the law were neither serious nor intentional, and held Petitioner to standards higher than those applied to other handgun license applicants; that the denial was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the petitioner seeks an order directing respondent to issue Petitioner the license or, in the alternative, remanding this matter back to respondent for further investigation into Petitioner's background and character, and an administrative hearing.

In opposition, respondent contends that the denial is rationally based in law and fact and that Petitioner's repeated violations, which include misdemeanor violations, suggest a pattern of disregard for duly enacted and enforced governmental rules and regulations and run afoul of the good moral character required for the issuance of a pistol license.
A Nassau Sex Crimes Lawyer asked, was the denial of license proper?

In an Article 78 proceeding, the scope of the court's review is limited to whether the administrative agency's determination is arbitrary and capricious or is supported by a rational basis in the record. In addition, the construction given statutes and regulations by the agency responsible for their administration, if not irrational or unreasonable, should be upheld.
It is well settled that "possession of a handgun license is a privilege rather than a right". The privilege is subject to reasonable regulation. Further, the police commissioner is vested with broad discretion, and has been granted "extraordinary power," in granting licenses and regulating the possession of firearms within New York City.

In petitioning to vacate the denial of the handgun license application, Petitioner bears the burden of showing that there is "no good cause" for the denial. However, in the instant case, petitioner has failed to do so.

Petitioner seeks a premises handgun license. This type of license is restricted and is issued only for a specific business or residence location. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said it also permits the holder to transport an unloaded handgun directly to and from an authorized small arms range. To qualify for a premises license, the applicant must be of good moral character and be an applicant concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of such license.

The administrative record demonstrates the existence of sufficient good cause to deny Petitioner's application.

The record includes Petitioner's repeated violations of the law and an arrest that, as respondent correctly found, collectively suggest a pattern of disregard of duly enacted and enforced rules and regulations of a governmental agency and cast doubt on Petitioner's good moral character.
Petitioner had several misdemeanor violations; and traffic violations. Petitioner does not deny the basis for these charges, but instead offers excuses for his behavior. The Court notes that many of these violations were either dismissed or resolved on pleas to lesser charges and by payment of a fine. However, respondent is not barred from considering the circumstances surrounding the incidents or from noting an overall pattern of disregard for governmental rules and regulations.

Contrary to Petitioner's contention, his full-time employment in the family business and enrollment as a part-time college student, while laudable, do not render respondent's denial of the handgun license application arbitrary or capricious.

Respondent, in its discretion, may refuse to issue or may revoke a handgun license even where arrest charges were dismissed and the Petitioner has a commendable career or holds other licenses that were not revoked.

Moreover, on the issue that handgun licenses have been issued to applicants with criminal records more serious than the petitioner’s record, the individuals referred to by demonstrate that their last negative contact with the law occurred three and four years prior to their submission of handgun license applications and that they had each taken responsibility for, and reformed, their previous negative behavior. By contrast, Petitioner's most serious contacts, including his arrest for driving without a license, occurred within six months before his submission of the written application. Petitioner's record thus evidences a pattern of disregard of governmental rules and regulations existing close in time to the submission date. Given this pattern of behavior, respondent's denial of Petitioner's application is rationally based in law and on the facts.

Next, petitioner contends that, to the extent that respondent's denial after appeal is based on evidence of domestic violence incidents in Petitioner's home that did not involve Petitioner; the denial is arbitrary, capricious and violated his due process rights.

Even assuming that respondent's reference to domestic violence incidents in Petitioner's home was not appropriate and does not form a rational basis for the denial, the petition would still be denied. Respondent's denial is primarily based on Petitioner's own behavior and contact with law enforcement agencies.

Therefore, while remand to an administrative agency for reconsideration of a license application is an appropriate remedy where the cited basis for the denial is not sufficient, remand is not necessary here, where a valid basis does exist and was cited by respondent.

The reference to domestic violence did not violate Petitioner's due process rights. In general, procedural due process rights require that a deprivation of life, liberty or property be preceded by notice and an opportunity to be heard. Notice and an opportunity to be heard are mandated only where an individual has been deprived of a liberty or property interest subject to due process protection, i.e., one in which the individual has a legitimate claim of entitlement.

However, a handgun license is a privilege, rather than a right. Therefore, a license applicant or holder is entitled to reasonable notice and a fair opportunity to be heard, in accordance with the applicable statutes, with respect to the reasons for the denial or revocation. The record below amply demonstrates that Petitioner received reasonable notice by respondent's written specific and concisely stated reasons for the denial and an opportunity to be heard.
Accordingly, the court finds that the denial was proper.

For more information on how to deal with situations similar to the above mentioned case, if you find yourself to be in one, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Consult with a New York City Domestic Violence Attorney from our firm. With our free consultation, you will know more about the legal remedies available to you. You may also speak with a New York City Criminal Attorney from our firm to discuss the extent of criminal prosecutions possibly attached with your case. Call us and know your rights.

On 4 September 1987, a man and a woman (or mother/petitioner and father) got married. Thereafter, on or about 24 July 1996, the couple divorced. A decree of divorce was entered and incorporated the terms of a separation agreement which provided that the parties were to share joint legal custody of their child, but that her primary residence was to be with the mother. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the agreement also provided that the Colorado court was to retain continuing personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the disputes relating to the enforcement of the agreement.

On or about 18 March 1998, the mother suffered a near fatal car accident in Colorado. On or about 22 March 1998, the child left her Colorado home for a previously scheduled visit with her father, who was then residing in Queens County, in New York City. The visit was to conclude on 28 March 1998.

On March 27, however, the father filed a petition in Family Court, Queens County, seeking custody of their child.

The mother acknowledges that she was served with the petition, but alleges that, because of her car accident, she was too weak to travel to New York to contest it.

In the petition, the father alleged that the court should exercise "emergency jurisdiction" pursuant to Domestic Relations Law so as to protect the child. Specifically, the father alleged, among other things, that the child had moved with the mother approximately five times in the last several years, and that she had been exposed to repeated serious incidents of domestic violence: "Each time the mother moved, she has taken up with a different boyfriend, and each boyfriend has been physically abusive to the respondent mother. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that upon information and belief, one boyfriend broke the respondent mother's shoulder; another boyfriend broke her mother's nose. Although the subject child has not directly witnessed these severe occasions of physical abuse, she was aware of it happening in that she heard the sounds, screaming and yelling as it occurred. On at least one occasion, the subject child did hear one boyfriend smash the petitioner's car window out of anger, and later saw the actual broken glass.”

The petition also recites that the father had the child seen by a certified social worker who subsequently prepared a facially thorough report that was made available to the Queens County Family Court. That report supported the allegations in the petition concerning the transient nature of the child's existence with her mother and her exposure to domestic violence.
The Agency for Children's Services (ACS) also prepared a report that was made available to the court. The report stated that the father and his new wife were taking good care of the child in their home. In addition, the report recited that its author had spoken to the mother in Colorado by phone on 31 March 1998 and 22 June 1998. Although the mother "denied partly" the incidents of domestic violence she apparently did not intend to contest the petition: "Mother said she has returned to her job but that she is not in a good condition of health to appear in Court on the case at this time and that she does not know how soon she might be able to come. The mother said she would relinquish her legal custody of the child to the father this time due to in-ability to appear in court. She said she would later consider asking the Court to return child's custody to her when she becomes very healthy."

On 24 June 1998, the Queens County Family Court granted the father a final order of custody. Petitioner learned of that Order no later than 22 July 1998, when the Law Guardian who had been assigned to the case wrote her, stating, "The judge indicated that he was issuing the order without prejudice for you to seek custody when you are healthy."

The mother took no steps to regain custody until 28 April 1999 when she filed the instant petition. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said the mother expressly sought "modification" of the Queens Order by reason of "changed circumstances," including the father's alleged interference with the mother's access to the child and the fact that the mother had recovered from her car accident so that she now has full capacity to once again resume the physical care for her child. As relief, the mother sought "reinstatement" of the "original custody determination of the" Colorado court. Nowhere in the petition did the mother suggest that the New York Family Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the substantive custody issue.
Following the father's appearance, a Law Guardian was appointed, and a temporary order of visitation was granted the mother.

On or about 21 June 1999, the mother filed a motion in Colorado District Court for the return of the Minor Child and to Reaffirm Colorado Jurisdiction. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said that in those papers, she alleged that the Queens County Family Court had been without jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) to enter its order granting the father custody since it impermissibly modified a preexisting custody decree over which the Colorado court retained jurisdiction. She requested that the Colorado Judge to whom the matter was assigned confer with the undersigned and that the Colorado court "affirm jurisdiction" over the dispute and direct the return of the child to her.
Thereafter, on 12 August 1999, the mother filed the instant motion based upon an amplification of the allegations raised in Colorado, in that she asserts that under the UCCJA and Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act, the Queens County Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the father custody. Specifically, among other things, she alleges and the Law Guardian agrees that the Queens County Family Court could not exercise jurisdiction unless the Colorado court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the parties' dispute and that the Judge improperly failed to contact the Colorado court to determine whether such a declination would be made. Furthermore, she asserted that there was no independent basis for the exercise of jurisdiction in New York since it was not the home State of the child at the time of the filing of the father's petition and because the father's allegations and factual submissions did not warrant, as a matter of law, the exercise of "emergency jurisdiction." In addition, contradicting the information set forth in the ACS report prepared in conjunction with the Queens proceedings, the mother denied that she had ever told ACS that she consented to the grant of custody to the father.

Who is entitled to the custody of the child?

Contrary to the mother's position, it is clear that the Queens County Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue its Order. Domestic Relations Law grants the Family Court subject matter jurisdiction to deal with custody matters where the child is physically present in its state and it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child. It is plain that the evidence made available to the Queens County Family Court on its face justified the exercise of jurisdiction under that section.

Evidence including the reports of social worker supported the father's allegation that the child had been repeatedly exposed to acts of serious domestic violence visited upon the mother. There is little question that, if true, such exposure places the child's physical and emotional well-being at substantial and immediate risk. Indeed, it can provide the predicate for a finding of neglect.

Moreover, the evidence presented and the petition's allegations were uncontested by the mother at the time of the court's consideration of the petition. Clearly, under these circumstances, "emergency jurisdiction" existed and empowered the court to issue its Order. As stated: "Once an emergency is found to exist, the court has jurisdiction and is empowered to determine the issue of child custody. The emergency and the child's safety outweigh all other considerations."

A different conclusion is not mandated by the fact that the parties were apparently subject to the jurisdiction of the Colorado court at the time the Queens County Family Court considered the matter. It is true that, by its terms, the PKPA provides that a court of one State may modify the preexisting custody determination of another State only if, inter alia, the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction, or has declined to exercise such jurisdiction to modify such determination. It is further true that had the issue of the prior Colorado decree been raised to the Queens County Family Court, the PKPA would have thus been implicated, the procedures it contemplates may have been triggered, and a different result may have obtained. However, the fact is that the mother did not raise the issue before the Queens County Family Court. Under these circumstances, the failure to consider its implications did not deprive the Queens County Family Court of jurisdiction in the sense of depriving it of authority to consider the matter.

A court which otherwise has "subject matter jurisdiction" over a custody dispute may not be deprived of that jurisdiction by the PKPA. In other words, its "competence to entertain" a custody petition is not diminished by operation of the PKPA. Indeed, by its relevant terms the PKPA does not purport to implicate that "competence." Rather, consistently with the manner in which the statute is designed to operate, the statute's language affects only the court's "power to reach the merits" of an interstate custody dispute. Thus, it acknowledges that a court considering modification of a sister State's decree might have the competence to act on the issue, but should only exercise its authority and reach the merits if certain conditions are met, viz.: “A court of a State may modify a determination of the custody of the same child made by a court of another State, if (1) it has jurisdiction to make such a child custody determination; and (2) the court of the other State lacks or declines the exercise of jurisdiction.

As applied to the facts of the instant case the foregoing principles preclude a conclusion that the Queens County Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue its Order. As noted, it had the "competence to entertain" the father's petition by reason of the facts giving rise to "emergency jurisdiction." The fact that the PKPA could or should have been invoked does not undermine that competence. Put another way, the failure to apply the PKPA may have been an error of law, but it is not an "objection so fundamental to the power of adjudication of the court," that it should survive the final order.

Moreover, the mother did not challenge the exercise of jurisdiction until more than a year after the Queens Order issued. Indeed, when she first commenced the instant proceeding, she invoked the jurisdiction of this court and sought modification of the Queens Order, rather than being vacated. Having long acquiesced to the exercise of authority by the State, she should not now be heard to complain.

The mother's true substantive objection is the failure of the Queens County Family Court to apply the PKPA and that objection should and could have been raised at the outset of the Queens proceedings. Her failure to do so operates as a waiver of that non-jurisdictional objection.

Thus, the court finds that the Queens County Family Court had jurisdiction over the dispute sufficient to issue its Order and denies the motion to vacate the Queens Order on jurisdictional grounds. However, that Order was entered on default, with the mother never having had the opportunity to challenge the merits of the father's claim to custody. By the same token, the initial Colorado order was entered without the benefit of a fact-finding. Given all these circumstances, as well as the mother's alleged recovery from her automobile accident and the other matters relating to the parties' relative fitness as set out in their affidavits, it is apparent that a plenary best interests hearing to determine custody is required which should take place in New York, rather than in Colorado. Given the fact that the child has been in New York with the father for nearly two years now, and is attending school here, it cannot be said that substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in Colorado. Moreover, for the reasons stated, the most recent valid order governing custody is the one issued by the New York court.

If you are a victim of domestic violence and you don’t know what to do, consult with Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Be enlightened with the legal remedies available to you. Talk to a New York Domestic Violence Lawyer or New York Criminal Lawyer at our firm. A child exposed to domestic violence could be emotionally damaging. Prevent or lessen the impact by putting a stop to the domestic violence. Call us now for a free consultation.

Domestic violence laws have changed to become more responsive to the needs of battered victims even when their behavior seems to be erratic. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that victims of domestic violence do not respond in predictable ways, they do have certain patterns of behavior that are common. In 2005, the Federal Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005) was signed into law. This law prevents victims of domestic violence from eviction from their homes following incidents of domestic violence. Prior to this law, it was common for property owners to evict domestic violence victims from their homes following a violent episode. It was tantamount to victimizing the battered twice.

VAWA 2005 (42 USC § 1437f[c][9][B]) states that “An incident or incidents of actual or threatened domestic violence. . .shall not be good cause for terminating the assistance, tenancy, or occupancy rights of the victim of such violence.” Section C(i) provides that “criminal activity directly relating to domestic violence. . .shall not be cause for termination. . .if the tenant. . .is the victim. . .of that domestic violence. . .” In essence, the property owner can evict the primary aggressor. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the property owner may not evict the victim of domestic violence.

This law is important since many times, the victim is evicted because keeping them on the property exposes the property owner to complaints from other residents. The home is disruptive to neighbors who complain to the property owner or manager. The easy way out is to evict everyone in that home and rent to a family who does not cause a disturbance. Clearly, this is not fair to the victim. In fact, offenders will often threaten their victims to submit quietly so that the neighbors do not complain and they suffer eviction.

On April 1, 2008, a woman tenant of public housing on 420 East 102nd Street in the County of New York and the City of New York stabbed her ex-live in boyfriend. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the police responded to the scene and arrested her. The court dropped the case when they determined that she was the victim of domestic abuse and was acting in self-defense on the night in question. After the incident, the manager of the public housing facility notified the victim that she was in violation of her lease because she had engaged in illegal and violent behavior during domestic disputes.

The manager claimed that she had gotten numerous complaints that the victim was loud and boisterous. In fact, the property manager claims that in March of 2007, the victim received an order of protection from the Criminal Court. However, the victim allowed the suspect, ex-boyfriend, to return to the property in violation of the order on several occasions. In fact, she claimed that several times security for the property had to respond to loud fighting and screaming from the victim when the suspect was present. The property manager cited one incident when the victim used profanity toward building security when they refused to allow the suspect to go to the victim’s apartment. The property owner stated that the stabbing on April 1st demonstrates that the victim is a violent threat to the security of other tenants in the building.

The property manager failed to provide a time frame for any of the prior domestic disturbances. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said that she failed to have first-hand knowledge of any of the arguments. All of her testimony was hearsay. The property manager was unable to demonstrate who initiated the conflicts at the apartment. The property manager did not produce any evidence or affidavits from any other involved parties. There was no documentation provided from hospital records, police reports, and statements from the security guard, other tenants, employees, or witnesses. The property manager had no reliable basis to show how she obtained her information. She presented an incident report filed the following day from a security guard on the property.

The security guard’s report was not a sworn statement or affidavit. It described the events of that evening as far as he was involved. He claims that while he was at work as a security guard on the property, he that a person notified him that someone had fallen on the grounds. He went to that location and found the ex-boyfriend lying on the ground. The man told the security guard that he had been stabbed. This report merely named the victim as a person who was involved in the stabbing and not necessarily as the perpetrator or primary aggressor in the incident. Because this security guard was not a witness to the assault, his report is also hearsay. The report did not identify the original complainant. The only mention of the victim in the report was to identify that there was an active protection order against the injured man. It did not specify that the victim stabbed him.

The victim claims that she did not stab him. The charges were dismissed against her by the courts. She claims that as a victim of domestic violence, the property owner cannot evict from her apartment based on the actions of the suspect. The victim asked the court to consider the extensive history of domestic violence calls to her residence. The court recognizes that the claim presented that the victim allowed the suspect to return to the apartment after a protection order was obtained, does not in itself dispute the victim’s claim of domestic violence. The court acknowledged that battered woman syndrome is a well-established concept in law and science. The court states that the cycle of domestic violence is such that it is common for a battered woman to react with seemingly inconsistent behavior. In essence, a battered woman will also act with the concept of anticipatory self-defense when others would not perceive a threat. Battered woman syndrome explains the behavioral pattern of abused women and the effects that it has on their conduct.

The court quoted renowned expert on battered women syndrome, Joan M. Schroeder when she wrote that a battered woman may change her mind about prosecuting the batterer and withdraw her complaint, refuse to testify as a witness, or recant her testimony. This contention shows that the change of mind demonstrated by the victim in this case about prosecuting her batterer and allowing him to return to her apartment is consistent with victim behavior. Because battered women syndrome is cyclical in nature, the woman may allow the man to return to their home during what is called the “honeymoon phase” following an incident of violence. The woman becomes attuned to the cycle over time and is capable of predicting an episode of oncoming violence. Following the violent episode, the cycle returns to the “honeymoon phase” and the abuser is apologetic and charming.

The victim in this case asked the court for a summary judgment granting that she not be evicted under VAWA 2005. The court agreed with her. She was granted a summary judgment, and returned to her apartment. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, their Domestic Violence Lawyers have convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. If you or someone you know is facing an action involving WAVA 2005, it is important to have a NY Domestic Violence Attorney assist you. Don’t lose your home because you don’t have a Criminal Attorney to represent you.

In domestic violence cases, the court is often called upon to review actions that people have taken in contradiction to the law. In New York, the wiretapping laws are clear. If one of the two people involved in the conversation on a telephone line is aware of the taping, then the tape is legal and may be presented in a court of law. If however, the tape is made by a third person with no input into the call and without the knowledge or permission of anyone involved in the conversation, then the tape is not admissible in court and is considered an illegal wiretap. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the laws that control these wiretaps explicitly detail that anyone who wants to tape a conversation must obtain an order authorizing the wiretap from a Supreme Court judge.

In many domestic violence cases, one or both of the parties involved may attempt to gain information about the other to use in court. If the information is obtained without the proper judicial order, it must be reviewed to determine if one of the parties involved in the conversation gave permission for the tape. If it is proven that one of the parties in the tape gave permission for it to be made, then the court has other procedures that it must follow. A certified court recorded will make an official transcript of the conversation on the tape. In most cases, the defendant’s attorney will want to depose the people or person on the tape in order to establish the veracity. In some cases, this can become problematic for the court. This is the case if the person who gave permission for the tape is located more than 100 miles from the point of the trial. In the present case, a wife had in her possession in matrimonial issue, a tape that she contends will prove that her husband is lying. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the proposed that the conversation on the tape, that took place between he and his sister detailed his deceptive practices and is therefore critical to the defense of this woman and the custody issue at stake.

The judge ruled that the tape would have to be authenticated by official contact with the sister who gave permission for the tape to be made. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said then the sister officially notifies the court that she did give permission for her brother’s wife to tape her conversation with her brother, then the court will authorize a transcript of the tape. The court further states that upon acceptance of the tape as legitimate, the sister will be made convenient to the defense for a deposition.

In this case that meant that the court ordered the wife to pay for the husband and his attorney to travel to Toronto, Canada within 30 days. Upon their arrival in Toronto, they will conduct a sworn deposition of the witness in the forum where they can ask questions while they review the transcript. It is believed that only through this process can the wiretap be fairly considered. The reason for this, is that this witness is beyond the power and jurisdiction of the courts in New York. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said that this is in a foreign country that is beyond the legal reach of the courts of New York. That means that the only way that a deposition can be taken is if the court sends someone to the witness and not the other way around. This would have been different if the witness had lived closer. The witness would have been required to appear in the court in person to testify as to the permission that was given for the tape.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates its Domestic Violence Lawyers, have offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area. Do not lose Child Custody. Our Family lawyers can provide you with advice when you are faced with an opponent who lies. Without an Order of Protection Lawyer, you may not be able to protect yourself in a dangerous situation.

In August 2005, New Jersey, respondent engaged in a physical altercation with his wife that took place in March of that year. Respondent pleaded guilty to the crime of simple assault, for which he was sentenced to one year of probation. As a result of that conviction, respondent (who is also a member of the New Jersey bar) was censured by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that on December 2007, respondent had another instance in which he struck his wife while they were on vacation in the Caribbean.

In 2008, Virginia, respondent was involved in a domestic dispute with his wife in March of that year. The altercation culminated in respondent striking and restraining his wife, causing physical injuries to her that required medical attention. Respondent was arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to the felony of unlawful wounding, in violation of the Virginia Code, for which he was sentenced to three years of incarceration with all but 12 months suspended, subject to certain conditions. Upon release from prison in February 2009, respondent was placed on probation until February 2011. An order of protection was also issued, which directed respondent to stay away from his wife and to make restitution to her in the amount of $2,283.43. The Virginia conviction gave rise to the instant proceeding.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on 12 May 1975. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that although he has not maintained an office for the practice of law in New York during the period relevant to this matter, he has maintained his registration with the New York bar. At the time of the events in question, respondent was employed by a telecommunications company as an in-house counsel in Washington, D.C., and resided in Virginia.

By order entered 6 October 2009, the herein Court, upon the motion of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee: (1) determined that the Virginia felony of unlawful wounding, of which respondent was convicted in 2008, is a “serious crime” as defined by Judiciary Law; (2) based on the Virginia conviction, immediately suspended respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law; and (3) directed respondent to show cause before a Hearing Panel of the Committee, pursuant to Judiciary Law, why a final order of censure, suspension or disbarment should not be made against him.

On 20 January 2010, and 17 February 2010, proceedings were held before a Hearing Panel pursuant to the aforesaid order.

The sole issue before the Panel was the appropriate sanction to be imposed on respondent based on his 2008 conviction of a serious crime in another state.

The Committee presented no witnesses. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his psychiatrist. A Nassau Sex Crimes Lawyer said the Hearing Panel noted the following as factors, in its report, tending to mitigate respondent's culpability: (1) respondent's long and exemplary work record and attestation to his good character from colleagues; (2) the connection of respondent's misconduct to a dysfunctional marital relationship that is now coming to an end through divorce; (3) the initiation of the altercation by respondent's wife; (4) the causal connection between respondent's abusive conduct and his intermittent explosive syndrome, a recognized psychological condition for which he is being treated, and was being treated before the incident; (5) the confinement of respondent's physical aggression to his personal life; and (6) the substantial criminal sanctions, including a period of imprisonment, that have already been imposed on respondent. Also, the Hearing Panel noted, as an aggravating factor, respondent's history of domestic violence before the March 2008 incident.

Accordingly, taking into account the aforesaid mitigating and aggravating factors, the Hearing Panel majority, recommended that respondent receive a suspension of 30 months effective as of 6 October 2009, the date his interim suspension commenced.

The Committee now seeks an order, confirming the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Hearing Panel in this matter and suspending respondent from the practice of law for not less than 30 months effective the date of this Court's interim suspension order. A Queens Sex Crime Lawyer said the respondent cross moves to confirm the Hearing Panel's report as to the recommended sanction and as to most of the findings of fact and conclusions of law but to disaffirm certain findings and conclusions.

The court finds, in the exercise of its discretion, that respondent should be suspended for 36 months in view of the gravity of the offense of domestic violence and his prior history of similar misconduct. While respondent may not have engaged in physical aggression in his professional life, it cannot be overemphasized that his abuse of his spouse reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law.

The Court has considered and rejected the respondent's cross motion that certain portions of the Hearing Panel's report be disaffirmed.

Accordingly, the herein Court grants the Committee's motion, affirming only in part the Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law and; respondent suspended from the practice in the State of New York for a period of 36 months effective 6 October 2009, and until further order of the Court.

Protect yourself from domestic violence. Know your rights and what legal steps you can make to ensure your safety. Consult with Stephen Bilkis & Associates for free. Ask for a legal advice from the best NY Domestic Violence Lawyer. You can also speak with the firm’s exceptional NY Criminal Lawyer.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that the defendant-mother (hereinafter referred to as mother) and plaintiff-father (hereinafter referred to as father) were married in December 1996 and in 2003 were physically separated when the mother left the marital residence alleging abuse against her and the children.

The mother moved for an order of custody and modification of prior orders of custody entered in the Family Court, on consent. There are two (2) children of this marriage ages 14 and 9.
On 27 June 2003 the father filed a petition for custody in Family Court, Kings County.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said thereafter, on 21 October 2003, from the Family Court, joint custody was awarded on consent to both parties with the mother retaining primary custody and the father receiving weekend visitation. In accordance with the Family Court's data entry records, shortly thereafter, on 30 October 2003, the mother, pro se, filed a family offense petition, which was dismissed the very same day without prejudice.

On 1 June 2005, the father filed a petition for a modification of an order of custody. In response, the mother also filed a petition on 28 July 2005 for a modification of an order of custody. The mother defaulted having failed to appear on 21 October 2005. Accordingly, the father's petition was granted, awarding him custody.

Thereafter, the mother filed petitions dated January 6 and 9 February 2006, respectively. The mother sought to modify and to vacate the custody orders of 21 October 2005, alleging that the father threatened her life and the lives of their children were she to appear in court on that date in 2005. The mother's petitions were denied in 2005 and the custody order remained unchanged until 22 October 2008. The parties consented in Family Court to the father retaining primary physical custody with clearly defined visitation rights for the mother.

On 17 December 2008, the father filed the within action for divorce and the Family Court matters were consolidated, on consent, by this court into the matrimonial action.
A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said on 6 August 2009, alleging a change in circumstances, the mother filed an “order to show cause” seeking custody of the children. At the conclusion of the oral argument for the order to show cause, it was clear that there was a sufficient change in circumstances, as alleged, to warrant a trial on the issue.

Should the custody arrangement be modified?

In order to determine whether a custody arrangement should be modified, the court must apply one of two (2) different standards depending on whether the arrangement was created by a court order or agreement of the parties. The first, and more lenient, standard applies to court ordered arrangements; to modify such an arrangement the court must find "a change of circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child". However, "where parents enter into an agreement concerning custody it will not be set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the children'"

The Appellate Division, Second Department has recently held that "Where, as here, parents enter into an agreement concerning custody, that agreement will not be modified unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation, and unless modification of the custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child."
In the instant case, the parties consented to the custody decision of 22 October 2008. Therefore, the latter standard will be applied.

The court finds that there have been sufficient changes in circumstances since the last Family Court order on 22 October 2008. The court has conducted separate in camera interviews with each child. The court paid careful attention to those interviews. It is clear the children wanted to live with their father when the parties consented to the 2008 custody arrangement but now they want to live with their mother, as is argued by their attorney. The mother has now found a new residence and improved her work schedule to increase her availability for the children. Most importantly, it is apparent to this court that the children have experienced escalating violence in the home. These findings lead this court to believe that there is a sufficient change in circumstances that were not foreseen and it is in the best interests of the children that a modification of the custody and access schedule be granted.

A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said it is also important to note that the trial court, which had the opportunity to view the demeanor of the witnesses, was in the best position to gauge their credibility. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses and evidence is afforded great weight on appeal.

The court finds the mother's testimony of escalating violence credible and the father's downplaying and denial of the violence not credible. The court specifically finds that: on 17 August 2009, the eldest child was punched by the father in the ribs after playing a video game he was forbidden to play; on 17 August 2009, the father made the eldest child ride the city bus until 1:00 a.m., and the child was not able to use the bathroom or eat until the father's shift was over; on or about 14 September 2009, the paternal grandfather who resides in the apartment below the father punched the younger child in the leg; and on or about 9 October 2009, the father ripped up the law guardian's business card in front of the children and then called her a "white devil".

Furthermore, the record is replete with additional incidents of domestic violence reported by the mother, and supported by evidence and testimony by the maternal grandmother.
Moreover, pursuant to Domestic Relation Law the court must consider this history of domestic violence when making a custody determination. The statute provides that “In any action or proceeding brought to obtain the custody of or right to visitation with any child of a marriage where either party to an action concerning custody of or a right to visitation with a child alleges that the other party has committed an act of domestic violence against the party making the allegation or a family or household member of either party and such allegations are proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the court must consider the effect of such domestic violence upon the best interests of the child, together with such other facts and circumstances as the court deems relevant in making a direction pursuant to this section and state on the record how such findings, facts and circumstances factored into the direction.”

In the case at bar, it is evident that, while the father is an involved parent who takes an active role in the children’s education, health, religion and extracurricular activities, they cannot overcome the level of fear, intimidation and physical violence.

Numerous incidents of domestic violence, which the court finds credible, override the positive qualities of the father's parenting.

The prior custody agreement is different from the one herein in two ways. First, there was never a finding after trial rendered by a court. Rather, the parties either came to an agreement or withdrew prior petition for modification. Secondly, the new statutory scheme which was adopted in 2009 was certainly not in effect. The 2009 amendment to Domestic Relation Law now requires that the court "state on the record how such findings, facts and circumstances of domestic violence factored into the direction". All of the prior custody determinations were predicated upon agreements which predated the statutory amendment.

The Court had an opportunity to observe the parties and hear extensive testimony as well as conduct in camera interviews separately with both children (twice each) during this proceeding. It is clear that the father's conduct in dealing with the children is far more physical than the mother's or that which is required to properly discipline children. He was disingenuous in his denial and inconsistent in his positions taken as it relates to discipline of the children or the events of violence. It is clear to this court that the physical nature of his interactions with the children has now led to physical altercations between his children themselves, him and the children and the younger child and the mother’s son from a previous relation. The court finds the claim of the maternal grandmother that the eldest child had black and blue marks credible. His testimony was condescending and at times, belittling. Simply put-there is too much of a stress on physical intervention and threats.

In addition to the threats on her and the children’s lives, the mother explained that she also agreed to the father having custody of the children in 2008 because she avers that her attorney advised her that it was unlikely that the children would be returned to her because she did not have her own apartment. The court finds credible the mother's assertion that she believed that her living situation and space restraints were a basis for her to have to agree to the custody to the father. However misguided her belief may or may not have been, the court cannot in and of itself determine that her new plans for residential arrangements standing alone would be the basis for a change in custody based upon an unanticipated change in circumstance. It is not this court's intention to act as appellate authority of past Family Court orders. It is well established though in making custody determination there is not only one factor but a host of factors that a court must consider including the history of violence and the new acts of violence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department recently held that: the essential consideration in determining custody is the best interests of the child. The factors to be considered in making a custody determination include the parental guidance provided by the custodial parent, each parent's ability to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, each parent's ability to provide for the child financially, the relative fitness of each parent, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent. The existence or absence of any one factor cannot be determinative on appellate review since the court is to consider the totality of the circumstances.

This court acknowledges the father's extensive involvement in the children's lives. However, it is crystal clear to this court that he has not provided for the children’s emotional development. On the contrary, he has repeatedly thwarted efforts to promote their emotional stability. The incidents of domestic violence against the mother which were witnessed by the children, the corporal punishment used by the father resulting in black and blue bruises, pulling the children out of therapy after only eight (8) session immediately upon the completion of the Family Court matter, failing to sign the counseling form provided by the school, failing to advise the paternal father that corporal punishment is prohibited by court order yet leaving the children in his care on a regular basis is simply not acceptable. Such decisions and actions by the father have clearly had on impact on these children. The mother, the maternal grandmother and the mother’s son from a previous relation stated that the children have behavior issues. This court notes the impact on the younger child of the infant children that each parent has with other people.

It is also clear from observing the father's action that he believes that his custodial authority extends to eliminating the mother from the children's lives. An example of this belief is when he made arrangements for the baptism of their child without ever notifying the mother or even the maternal grandmother with whom he has regular contact. The father's claim that the mother will not speak with him does have some merit, but notification itself does not have to be vital for the court to fault the mother for refusing to speak with the father.

The father explained his own behavior as a reflection of his "Hispanic culture". The father cannot defer to an argument of cultural experience as an explanation for his behavior. While the court respects, honors and admires the diverse cultural experience of our nation of immigrants we cannot ignore the effects of violence and power in a family unit. It is also clear that, whenever the father speaks or testifies, the mother cannot even bring herself to look at him directly. She either looks down or to the side and her painful renditions of past violence towards her and her children and threats to others have caused the court to pause in concern.

The court does have additional concerns that the father does not truly appreciate the depth of the children's needs. His denial of access to therapy for them, for example because parking is difficult or having children ride on a New York City Bus through the late hours on his route are of concern. Similarly the Court does not find credible the fathers explanation as to his acts towards the attorney for the children.

The court does find credible the mothers articulated fear of the father was overwhelming under these unique circumstances, but does recognize that the fear coupled with economic uncertainty and space limitations should not be a determining factor in making custody agreements.

The court also acknowledges the role that the grandparents have played in assisting both parents in their obligations. Economic necessity required and will still require grandparent involvement. There is a volatile relationship that the children have with their father and there have been some claims of physical violence between the children and the paternal grandfather which resulted in an order of the Family Court that there shall be no corporal punishment.

Accordingly, the violence upon the children after 22 October 2008, which has been corroborated, is a basis to change custody when the court considers the prior history of domestic violence testified to and the acts complained of after this date. The court cannot and will not second guess the previous agreements and orders predicated on them. It is in the best interest of these children that custody be awarded to the mother. The father is awarded access to the children.

We, at Stephen Bilkis & Associates, specialize in Domestic Violence. If you are a victim of domestic violence, similar with the above mentioned case, contact us for a free consultation. We have our well trained and experienced New York Domestic Violence Attorneys and New York Criminal Attorneys to advise you.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said a man and a woman bring a special proceeding to the court requesting to show cause and seeks to annul the special condition on the man’s’ parole from the State Division that prohibits him from living with his wife and limiting the amount of hours that he can spend with his wife.

The man was arrested for repeatedly kicking and punching an individual in the face and body together with the un-apprehended individual in a bar. The incident caused serious injuries to the victim, including two large gashes on the victim's head. The man eventually pled guilty to assault in the second degree. The man was sentenced to two and one-half years in prison and two years of post-release supervision.

Consequently, the man appeared before the State Division. The State Division noted that the man was arrested on several occasions in another country, including two arrests for domestic violence. The man admitted to the State Division with the reason of grabbing his then girlfriend and pushing the girl into a shallow end of a pool just a few months ago. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the man was convicted on charges that stemmed from both arrests. The State Division also noted that the man is a violent individual and will need to be strictly monitored upon release but recommended that he be released to parole supervision.

The man was released from the correctional facility but was transferred to prison to serve his three month term for an outstanding parole violation related to one of the domestic violence arrests. Consequently, the man finished the term, moved to his house and began serving his parole. One of the special conditions is that he should be prevented from residing with any partner without prior written permission of the parole officer. The said condition prevented the man from staying with his wife overnight. However, he was free to visit his wife during the day until about 7:30 p.m.

During the parole period, the man’s wife underwent surgical breast cancer treatment. According to her doctor, the surgery would be painful and would cause significant physical limitations. The man and her wife then initiated an action seeking a temporary stay of the special condition due to the wife’s surgery. A Nassau County Sex Crime Lawyer said the stay was granted and extended. Consequently, a trial was conducted to determine if the stay was still warranted. After the hearing, the stay was lifted because the wife though sick, did not require the kind of intensive care that the man initially alleged. The couple’s claim was also dismissed.

The couple argues that it is subjective, unpredictable and an abuse of judgment to prevent the man from living with his wife. The couple further argues that the special condition is not rationally related to his conviction and an unlawful burden on their marital relationship. The respondents argue that the State Division has broad responsibility with regard to conditions on parolees and that the condition is rationally related to the man’s violent criminal history.

Based on records, the special condition does not impose a complete obstruction on the complainant’s married life. The man is free to spend time with his wife every day for most of the day. The cases that the couple cited in support of their petition involve special conditions that are either vague or extremely restrictive and irrelevant. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the special condition is not ironclad and the State Division has admitted that it will automatically review the special condition after one year of its imposition and, under the right situation, could review the special condition prior to that time. The court decided that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.

It is very difficult for an individual to abide some rules particularly when a family member or a love one is in need of their love, care and support. If you are burdened by these kinds of situations and you want legal assistance regarding other person’s violent behavior, ask a NY Domestic Violence Lawyer. If a criminal case came unexpectedly, the NY Criminal Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis & Associates are always ready to provide you appropriate choice of legal actions.

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.

Sex crime related cases come in unique stories of its own according to a well versed New York sex crime lawyer who has been practicing his profession for many years now. Here we talk about the case of Mustafa Rashid who was once charged for robbery, burglary, rape and sodomy. He was sentenced to eight to 16 years but was given a supervised parole after having served 11 years inside prison. After this release, unfortunately, he got into another robbery trouble again which just made everything worse for his case.

As per the facts gathered by a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, he was sent back to prison for the violations he made. He was then again released and yet created a crime again. This happened over and over as it is one big cycle to play. He was even sent to Rikers Island where he would spend his time in a correctional facility. In this case, another lawyer involved in the research who is a New York child pornography lawyer as well believes that Rashid falls under the category of the Mental Hygiene Law. This could not work for those who are already serving their sentence but with an exception to those whose sentences have expired like Rashid.

The court then as heard by a Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer took the decision to send him to a treatment facility or hospital as per the Mental Hygiene Law article 9. This involves the law that any person who is mentally ill should go through proper treatment so as to not harm the society. This is just the right thing to do especially for people like Rashid who just cannot seemingly control himself from doing such crimes that hurt others and put others’ lives at risk.

Above all the many cases that happen in our immediate environment these days, it is the sex crimes that are somehow most threatening. This is especially true when the victims are usually the helpless women and minors. Such criminal offenses should just deserve to come with its own ramifications like being isolated from the entire society or registering for treatment. According to a New York sex with minor defense lawyer, there is no better time but now to act on such cases and do not stay quiet for the benefit of the coming generations of our own children.

Everyone should be truly informed and be well assisted especially with the reliable Queens Sex Crimes Lawyers from the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. You would be completely guided through if you would not hesitate to ask for their assistance and learn more on how they can help you win your case or that of your loved ones. They can surely represent you whatever is the type of sex crime case you are to win over.

All of our lawyers are well versed with such cases considering a long period of background working on the same cases with almost the same elements. If you are searching for committed and sound legal proceedings, then you would not be frustrated with them. Always take a lawyer who will not be passive and instead represent a fighter’s approach to the case you are fighting for. To be a sex offender can cause so much embarrassment to your whole being. But this is not enough for those who have harmed the women and children out there who are totally harmless. Know more about the details of each element of such cases and from there you can be sure to be fully equipped in fighting your own case.

These days, it is very hard to trust others especially when it comes to leaving our kids with people who you can truly rely on. There are many cases these days where nannies and even babysitters are accused of committing sex crimes that involve the children of their own employers according to a New York sex crime lawyer. This goes the same for this case that is considered as an example here in this report for you to understand better the legal proceedings for such cases. The one involved here as the accused is James Watt.

Watt was convicted of rape, sodomy and for putting into danger the welfare of a little child. A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said the crimes involved in his case are considered very heinous since it was committed against innocent and helpless tiny girls who are under 11 years old. These kids according to their parents were entrusted to him since he operates a basement based daycare center in the community. The problem that made everything worse according to another New York child pornography lawyer is that the daycare center was not registered.

All of the kids involved as victims gave their testimonies in detail even if it was really heinously specific in detail. The Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer backed this all up with formal medical evidence from experts done through proper medical examinations of the children. Many of them already showed suffering from diseases which are sexually transmitted. It was actually very sensitive to discuss but this could be a true learning experience for many and how they would be able to protect their children. The total number of crimes that was perpetrated against him includes twelve kids. This of course means that this case should be well investigated and be well prepared.

To add more formality and technicality on the investigation of this particular sex crime, the court got the service of a master psychologist by the name of Eileen Treacy. She is an expert in handling the sex abuse syndrome with kids. She interviewed seven of the kid victims and the result of her analysis led to the conviction of Watt being guilty of the crime. According to a Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer the reports were all asked to be gathered and presented to the court.

In the end, what was most important for the court is to offer utmost protection to the innocent victims of Watt. All of them have gone through so much trauma and abuse that this could bring negative effects to how they will handle the future ahead of them. And it is important that such a crime should not just go unpunished. It is also such a weak reason to use that he should not be convicted just because no one can say the exact dates of the sex crime and abuse that were committed. And hence, the Court made the right decision to convict and punish such a person as James Watt for pretending to love and care for kids just so he can take advantage of sexually abusing them.

It is very important these days that you get to know or be in touch with the credible lawyer who can offer complete assistance to you especially if it is your own child who has fallen victim to such a heinous crime as this of Watt. The best place to start off your search for the right New York sex with minor defense lawyer is the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates located in NY.

Many cases in court somehow prolong before a decision is called especially when the corroboration is set to be enforced. In this case presented by a New York sex crimes lawyer, the case of Roger Doyle is set to be a rape case but they fight on the non-corroboration of other crimes that he is accused of like larceny, robbery and event assaults. He was believed to have risked the welfare of a child along with committing sexual abuse under the Penal Law which was made effective last September 16, 1967.

The complainant made a testimony against Doyle for intercourse and sodomy. The complainant’s side truly wanted to have the valid conviction of the accused for a case of consummated rape without the case of corroboration. As per the law, any individual can be deemed guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree if he creates sexual contact with another without getting the consent. It was compared to another case such as that of English. In that case though, a consummated rape happened but the accused was acquitted from it and instead was charged for assault, robbery and larceny.

Another Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer also compared it to other cases like that of Lo Verde, Young, Moore and Radunovic. In those cases, the rationale presented was still clearly valid for the prosecutors then cannot avoid the requirements of corroboration for the crime of rape. The concept of corroboration requires some limits. It is clear when a rape has happened, the sexual abuse in the third degree would be interdependent with the rape meaning it is related to it in an intrinsic level. This means that it is in aid affecting the crime if there would a testimony that would really prove its relation to it.

As per a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, in this case, the goal for corroboration was not too possible to achieve especially with the offense of having committed sex abuse in the third degree. The contemplated offense could have been just a minor one which includes touching a woman without her consents in a dark theatre or even in the midst of a crowded terminal. The fight could have been easily won if the sex crime committed was considered to be a major one. In short, the accused was found guilty of rape but corroboration is not needed to convict at the third degree.

All these and more were decided upon with full justice and basing on legal proceedings only according to a Queens Sex Crime Lawyer. This is because it is logical to understand that any court cannot legislate or decide on anything just through their own interpretation of the entire scenario or incident. If there is one thing that we should understand best is that Doyle will still pay for the sex crime he has done on the minor 15 year old with him being already within the age range of 30 to 35 years old.

Corroboration and the various degrees involved in each sex crime can only be understood well if it will be explained to you by legal counsel. The best ones can be found within the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. It is not just about winning the case that you or your loved ones are in. With a competent counsel, you can be sure too to learn a lot from the legal proceedings and learn how to fight true and fair for your own rights and freedom.

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.

According to a New York Sex Crime Lawyer, it was about a decade ago already when the SORA or the Sex Offender Registration Act was enabled. It is a requirement for sex offenders to register within ten days of their discharge from parole or incarceration according to the Correction Law. This law was made so as to control the likelihood of the offender repeating their crimes and furthermore protecting the society from such criminals. The SORA consists of three levels of risk with one the lowest and three as the highest. It comes with risk assessment guidelines that the experts assigned follow. To know more about it and its purpose, a New York sex crime lawyer discusses the case of a certain Shawn Kennedy.

Kennedy was charged in 2000 and was considered to be a level two offender. He went under the provision of the Uniform Code of Military Justice since he was a part of the Navy. His indecent assault crime was deemed to be a discredit to the entire armed forces and the Navy itself sentenced him to a discharge through bad conduct and with less pay. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that he was not put to prison not pay any fine.

The court has the right to reason out that indecent assault is still a federal crime. This then would require Kennedy to register in SORA. Besides, once an officer is discharged from service, then there is no necessity for them to even still inform the Navy of whatever program they may have to go through. It is very great news that all 50 states in the country have this kind of registration system for sex offenders.

According to a credible Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer, you can be able to know the complete listing of registration requirements for such with the documents of Surveys of Criminal Laws, Westlaw 50 State Surveys and the likes. Even if the offender is a naval officer, it is just right that he also go through the right treatment procedures just like the rest of the commonly accused. Such laws against crime offenders are concentrated on the details of the crime that fall under this treatment and procedure regardless if the offender is a normal citizen of the society or holds a certain authority.

The SORA is an important part of the legal process for any extreme sex offender to go through for their benefit and for the benefit of the society. According to a Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer this is very essential to be implemented wisely and consistently for this can help a lot in lessening the number of crime offenders in our societies. The SORA was not made to punish the offenders deliberately but instead help them in an overall note to recover also from any possible mental sickness that may have triggered the sex crimes they have committed.

There are many things that any regular person does not know about the intricacies of sex crimes. And if you want to learn more about it, you must check out the assistance of a qualified lawyer. You can start getting in touch with a credible one by visiting the company of Stephen Bilkis & Associates.

Many New York sex crime lawyers truly emphasize the effort of every state in the country to help not just the victims of sex crimes to recover but also those who are offenders. They also go through certain programs where they can be treated of their possibly mental sickness and help them become better individuals still in the future. Such process and programs is also the means of the court to protect the rest of the people in the societies especially if the offender is of the high-risk type already. So was the case of a certain Frederic C. Carpenter Jr. who appeals to not fall under the category of a risk level three sex offender.

A New York Sex Crime Lawyer said it was in September of 2000 when he was convicted of separate accounts which happened in 1998 and also 1999. Both cases involved different victim with one being an 11-year-old relative. The second incident was with his wife who complained of sexual abuse. Carpenter was sentenced to spend 2 to 4 years in prison and also five years of what the court terms as postrelease supervision.

To further help the supervision of the offender even after his time in prison, it was the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders who made an analysis and assessment that he falls to be a risk level three sex offender which cannot be lowered anymore, as assessed too by a New York Criminal Lawyer. His failure to accept responsibility also added to his risk level instead of helping him decrease it. The offenses made were properly analyzed since Carpenter was found guilty within two days.

The court has no errors in such finding especially since everything was based on all the presented facts and data with regards to the crimes that Carpenter committed. It also depended on the sworn statement of Carpenter’s wife especially during the actual hearing. All the points that have gathered up with the sexual abuse conviction all leads and sums up to the use of utmost violence and sexual contact along with not accepting the responsibility behind the crimes. A Nassau County Sex Crime Lawyer said that Carpenter only agrees to the decision if he will be classified as risk level two offender and not at level three.

It is hard to question the decision of the court to accept that he is a risk level three offender. The court finds the arguments of Carpenter being lack of credibility and proper merit. A Queens Sex Crime Lawyer said it was believed that all the assessments presented about him are true and properly done with regards to the kinds of crimes he has committed. Not to mention that there were some traced drug crime in the past connected to the offender but was not anymore highly raised during the arguments.

It is not just in New York that many sex crimes happen. These are becoming all the more rampant these days all over the world. It is important that you know your rights and how you would fight for it with the help and proper assistance of a New York sex crime lawyer. You can surely find one of the best lawyers when you start search in the office of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. They are made up of competent teams of lawyers who have the expertise in such cases who can help you win your own.

Every New York Sex Crime Lawyer these days finds a way to lessen the number of sex crimes that have been happening in our society. And one of the many effective strategies that can be done include informing citizens of how such proceedings go just like in the discussions of cases like this. This involves the case of a sex crime offender hidden behind the name of Robert V. It was in July of 2010 that the Attorney General of the State of New York ordered that he be detained and he should be supervised in a Mental Health facility for his treatment.

He was expected to continue being supervised by the office of Mental Health of New York after he has completed his sentence. It was in February of the following year that Robert filed his complaint saying that he was not convicted of a sex crime for it was never proven. And hence his robbery is not at all sexually motivated when he has done it in the past. He thinks that the need to get into a mental health facility is totally unconstitutional for it deprives him of his rights.

According to a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer, even if one crime committed seem to not be sexual, it can still fall under that if it belongs to a list of crimes included under the SORA or SOMTA law in New York. In this case of Robert, there were clear an solid evidences presented in court and that it was proven that he is a frequent sex offender. Such repetitions in sex crimes are great proof that there is something not normal with the behavior or mental status of the accused.

A civil process is done and decided upon by the court to examine and further analyze the offenders who have returned to the community after serving their sentence but still shows great signs of being mentally unstable. The provision is set to be more limited and the level of freedom of the offender may also have so much restraint by means of civil confinement. But the utmost goal of such treatment programs just has the purpose of protecting the general public from the harm that these offenders can do to them, commented a Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer.

The result of the court is that they denied the request of the accused to not go through the mental health treatment. With all the major exhibits and evidences presented, it was clear for everyone including the New York sex with minor defense lawyer who was part of the investigating staff that the offender should go through the right risk assessment so that he can be able to go through the right treatment for the utmost benefit of the general society especially for the citizens of New York.

A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said that such programs are very important for everyone in New York to know about better so that you know how to fight for your rights and of your loved ones to be able to steer away from being abused by such offenders like the one discussed in this particular report. You can best learn about such cases and the formality of legal proceedings with the help of an expert New York sex crime lawyer. You can get to even hire the best New York rape lawyer if you would take the time to visit Stephen Bilkis & Associates office based in New York. To help the general community we live in be free of sex offenders is a great way to start protecting especially the women and children in our society.

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.

It is one of the grisliest murders the locals have seen in a while. The incident is right out of an "America's Most Wanted" episode. An animal doctor was arrested last week for killing in cold blood his veterinarian technician, 27, who was also pregnant. The man has been charged with criminal homicide according to one source and a possible sex crime. The suspect has also been charged with the death of her unborn child. Snyder is from North Whitehall Township near Allentown Pennsylvania. The suspect is a veterinarian at Montgomery County's animal health facility.

Authorities found the victim’s body in a wooded, hilly area outside of North Whitehall Township. Her body had multiple gunshot wounds. Authorities told a N York Criminal Lawyer that on March 17, 2011, they found Snyder's car parked in an industrial park. One of the windows was shattered. Shell casings and blood were found inside the vehicle. Upon reviewing security tapes, authorities observed that a man drove the woman’s car into the park and exited the vehicle after a short time. Upon exiting the vehicle the man, later identified as the suspect, tossed some items into a dumpster. After investigating, police removed a bleach container and some sealed medical records belonging to the victim inside the dumpster.

Friends of the technician told police that they were aware that the 27 year old was going out with her "boyfriend" whom they identified as the suspect. There were accounts that the couple was fighting a lot recently due to her pregnancy. Her roommate told police in the court report that on the fateful day she received a strange text from her phone. She was suspicious as to who wrote the text because it was written differently than her usual texts.

Investigators went to the home of suspect and his wife to question him about his ties to the victim. The suspect at first denied any contact over the past several months, but when confronted with proof that he had seen her recently, he confessed to an affair and didn't want his wife to know.

Later that week police matched the gunshot wounds to the suspect's Glock handgun and the arrest followed soon after. Additionally, it is believed that an autopsy is being down todetermine if a sex crime was commited.

Continue reading "Animal Doctor Murders His Pregnant Technician" »

A Florida International University baseball star had his trial and two of his friends put on the fast track by a Bahamian prosecutor, Manhattan Criminal Lawyers have learned. The case is now on its way to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.
The next hearing will be on May 9 before a Senior Justice in Nassau. Court sources told Manhattan Criminal Lawyers that the trial will not begin then, however.
An attorney working with the Attorney General’s Office sent a bill of voluntary indictment to a magistrate, court sources reflected. This document allows the court to avoid a preliminary inquiry, instead forwarding the case directly to the Supreme Court. The document also contains sworn statements from the witnesses, which will also be seen by the defense.
This will make the case move more quickly, a court observer told Lawyers. “It’s done in the most serious cases,” the source continued. A rape conviction in the Bahamas can earn a life sentence, dependent upon the injury of the victim. “You can get it, but you don’t often get it,” the source said, referring to the life sentence.
This case involves two American tourists, both 17 years of age, who allege they were raped in December, while staying at a resort. Two of the men in the case are charged with one case of rape, each, while a third man is charged with raping both of the girls. They are all currently out on bond. Their attorney states everything was consensual. The legal age of consent in the Bahamas is 16. A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer would make a similar argument as would any attorney in Manhattan.
The attorney for the young men had no comment, and the father of one of the accused said he would only discuss the case once it was over. He did say, however, “Anyone can accuse anyone of anything at any time. He’s not doing well, obviously. He’s blown away. He’s devastated that someone would accuse him of this.”
The girls who made the accusations have not been identified to the press, nor have any of them made any comment.

Continue reading "University Baseball Star Faces Rape Trial in The Bahamas" »

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" »

In Queens, police are hunting for a serial sex predator finally caught on surveillance camera leaving a subway station in Flushing right before his last attack.
He is implicated in at least four attacks since September. Last September 22nd is when he’s believed to have first struck. He grabbed a 37-year-old woman from behind and sexually assaulted her. In December, his victim was a 27-year-old woman on Sanford Avenue. This woman was treated for injuries to her head and face.
His next attack was in February, against a 27-year-old woman on Bowe Street and his latest attack was on April 19, when he assaulted a 24-year-old woman on Colden Street. She was not badly injured. Right before the last attack, the suspect was seen on camera.
A drunk driver was arrested in midtown Manhattan after crashing his car into another vehicle, then jumping the curb to crash into a restaurant, police sources informed NYC Criminal Lawyers.
The 30-year-old driver was driving a 2008 Infiniti on Third Avenue when he rammed into a 2010 Lincoln SUV. He lost control of his car and drove onto the sidewalk, then into a building on Third Avenue, shattering a restaurant window. After the accident, he was arrested and charged with DUI. There were no serious injuries.
A Bronx man choked his ex-girlfriend, even as she held her baby in her arms, authorities told NYC Criminal Lawyers. The 20-year-old suspect pushed the woman and her 6-month-old baby into a bed and began strangling her while the baby cried.
“If you touch the door, this time I won’t hold back!” he allegedly told her.
The victim barely managed to remain conscious and suffered injuries on her neck and broken blood vessels under her eyelids, according to police. The suspect was arrested and charged with strangulation, assault and endangering the welfare of a child.
In Brooklyn, a gunman fired shots on a Flatbush street. One man was killed before the suspect fled the scene.
The 23-year-old victim was standing outside a building on Linden Boulevard at about 11 at night when he was shot in the chest. He was taken to Kings County Hospital where he was pronounced dead

Continue reading "Crime Stories from the Blotter" »

After complaints of crazy actions at a bar in Murieta, California, cops arrested comedian Andy Dick. He was found to be drunk and in possession of unprescribed drugs as well as grass. He is suspected of sexual attacks and was taken into custody on Wed. morning.

Witnesses said that Dick and friends pulled a young females shirt and bra off her leaving her bosom exposed. Authorities arrested Andy as he and his pals were leaving the scene in a truck. He remains in custody as we speak.

If you or any friend or a son or daughter is arrested, consulting with a Queens Criminal Lawyer is something to strongly consider. If you do not have a Queens Criminal Attorney to represent you on a legal level, you are endangering your freedom.

The misunderstood comedian is often in trouble and seems to have problems that just won't go away. He has many detractors who would love to see him suffer.

Continue reading "ANDY DICK ARRESTED-IF YOU'RE ARRESTED, HIRE A QUEENS CRIMINAL LAWYER" »