Published on:

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court

These are two juvenile delinquency proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. Appellant appeals are from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of resisting arrest, (2) an order of disposition of the same court, which, upon the fact-finding order, and a second fact-finding order of the same court, after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and petit larceny adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, and (3) an amended order of disposition of the same court. The appeal from the amended order of disposition, brings up for review the fact-finding order.

A Queens County Criminal attorney said that the orders appealed from arose from two separate incidents. In March 2003 the appellant was arrested for disorderly conduct; the charge was subsequently changed to resisting arrest. In August 2003 the appellant was arrested again, this time for shoplifting.

With respect to the first incident, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, the Court find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, had they been committed by an adult, would have constituted resisting arrest.

Penal Law § 205.30 defines resisting arrest as intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent a police officer from effecting an authorized arrest. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the evidence here established that the arresting officer was “justified in concluding that [the appellant] was intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk that public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm would occur”. Since the officer reasonably believed that the appellant was at least 16 years old and had probable cause to arrest him for committing the offense of disorderly conduct, the arrest was authorized and, therefore, the resisting arrest charge was established by legally sufficient evidence.

With respect to the second incident we find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, was legally sufficient to support the inference that the appellant acted with larcenous intent and knowledge that the merchandise he was holding had been stolen. Accordingly, the evidence was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, had they been committed by an adult, would have constituted petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

Finally, the Family Court’s findings with regard to both incidents were not against the weight of the evidence.

The Court ordered that the appeals from the fact-finding order, and the order of disposition, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as those orders were superseded by the amended order of disposition; and it is further Ordered that the appeal from so much of the amended order of disposition, as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as that period of probation commenced with the entry of the order of disposition, and has since expired; and it is further Ordered that the amended order of disposition, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

nation as an attorney and counselor-at-law. He was admitted to the bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department in July 1997 under his name.

A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that the resignor avers that his resignation is freely and voluntarily tendered, that he is not being subjected to coercion or duress, and that he is fully aware of the implications of submitting a resignation. The Resignor is aware that the Grievance Committee is currently investigating four complaints of professional misconduct against him, including one relating to his criminal conviction for petit larceny. In January 2004, resignor entered a plea of guilty to petit larceny in Criminal Court, Queens County, in violation of Penal Law § 155.25, a class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced in March 2004 to a one-year conditional discharge.

He acknowledges that if disciplinary charges were predicated upon the foregoing conviction, he could not successfully defend himself on the merits. His resignation is submitted subject to any application which could be made by the Grievance Committee for an order directing him to make restitution and reimburse the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) (a). He acknowledges the continuing jurisdiction of the Court to make such an order, which could be entered as a civil judgment against him, and he specifically waives the opportunity afforded him by Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) (f) to be heard in opposition thereto.

Inasmuch as the submitted resignation conforms with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 691.9, the Grievance Committee urges its acceptance. Shoplifting was not charged.

Based on the foregoing, the resignation of the resignor is accepted, and, effective immediately, he is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the resignor is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further, Ordered that resignor shall promptly comply with this Court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys; and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, resignor is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further, Ordered that if resignor has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and that He shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10 (f).

Here in Stephen Bilkis and Associates, our Queens County Criminal attorneys, by reason of their experience and years of practice, will help you in your legal problems. In case of theft cases, you can also consult our Queens County Petit Larceny lawyers for other matters.

Contact Information