Brooklyn

Published on: May 5, 2012

Store Issues Flyer Warning of Habitual Shoplifter

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is Edgar Paul, et al. The respondent of the case is Edward Charles Davis, III.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said he original case was heard and argued on the fourth of November in 1975. The original verdict of the case was given on the 23rd of March in 1976. A rehearing of the case was denied in May of 1976.

The original case involves a photograph of the respondent that was being used in a flyer that had pictures of active shoplifters. This photograph was used after the respondent had been convicted of shoplifting near Louisville, Kentucky. The shoplifting (petit larceny) charge was dismissed and the respondent then brought this case up against the petitioner police chiefs that issued the flyers. He states that this was a violation of his constitutional rights. The original district court that heard the case granted a dismissal motion from the petitioners.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Shoplifting Defendant Claims Illegal Search

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case is Gladys Carol Hutchinson. The appellee of the case is the state of Florida. The case is being heard in the second district, District Court of Appeal in the state of Florida.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing is a plea of nolo contendere for drug charges that she reserved the right to review through this court and was denied the right to suppress the charges.

Published on: April 30, 2012

Court Discusses Concurrent Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was indicted on three counts of robbery in the first degree, one count of attempted robbery in the first degree, five counts of grand larceny in the first degree, one count of assault in the first degree, one count of unlawfully carrying a loaded pistol concealed upon the person, three counts of assault in the second degree, and petit larceny.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the aforesaid man pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree (13th count), assault in the first degree (14th count), and unlawfully carrying a loaded pistol concealed upon the person (16th count).

On the date of sentencing, the District Attorney of Nassau County filed an Information charging that the man had previously been convicted of the felony of attempted rape in the second degree, which was admitted to be true.

Published on: April 25, 2012

Court Discusses Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendants in three cases challenge the rules promulgated by the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge that created either the Bronx Criminal Division or Integrated Domestic Violence Part in Supreme Court, which resulted in the transfer of their misdemeanor prosecutions from local criminal courts to Supreme Court for trial. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that although they did not object to the transfer procedure in the trial court, they argued on appeal that Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over their trials and that the rules violate the New York Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law.

The first case:

In January 2007, defendant was charged by misdemeanor information filed in New York City Criminal Court, Kings County, with multiple counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree after he contacted his former paramour by telephone 62 times in one evening and repeatedly threatened her with physical harm. Defendant and the complainant had been involved in multiple prior Family Court cases regarding disputes about their two children. After his arraignment in New York City Criminal Court, the case was transferred to the IDV Part in Kings County Supreme Court where a nonjury trial was conducted. Defendant was convicted of three counts of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree and sentenced to concurrent terms of one year’s probation. He was also directed to participate in a variety of domestic violence accountability and other programs.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Court Discusses Jurisdiction of IDV Courts

by Stephen Bilkis

The Court transferred into the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Part a case alleging criminal contempt of court filed against a woman and a family offense case that the woman filed against the complaining witness. On joint application of the Court and the accused, the Court also transferred a subsequently filed criminal case against the woman into the IDV Part. The Court’s application to consolidate the two cases for trial was granted. The family offense case that the woman filed against the complaining witness was dismissed for lack of proper service on an incapacitated person. The woman moves to send her consolidated cases back to Criminal Court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman argues that an Indictment or Superior Court Information is needed to allow misdemeanor cases to be prosecuted in the Supreme Court. The State Court of Appeals has recently rejected the argument and has upheld the authority of the IDV Courts to preside over misdemeanor cases such as the cases.

The woman also argues that upon the dismissal of her family offense petition for lack of service, the criminal cases must be transferred back to the Criminal Court. The woman cites no authority for the proposition and the Court is aware of none.

Published on: April 22, 2012

Court Decides Infant Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The responsibility of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) is to protect children in the state of New York from emotional or physical harm. This is the agency charged with stepping in to ensure that the home lives of children in the state of New York are safe. There are several laws that give authority to the ACS to conduct home examinations, require drug and alcohol testing, and even authorize the removal of children from their natural parents if it is necessary. However, because people are only human, the fact remains that sometimes mistakes happen. Unfortunately, when an employee of social services or children’s services makes a mistake, there are dire consequences. A New York Criminal Lawyer said in one case from August 2007, an infant girl child was killed at the hands of her mother’s companion. The case alleges that ACS employees were aware of the danger that the infant was in and did not take action to protect her.

The case states that because Brooklyn Family court had charged ACS with supervising the child’s home; and because ACS was familiar with many incidents of domestic violence in the home, the estate of the deceased child is due compensation for her death. The attorneys for ACS claim that since the child was killed by her mother’s companion, who is an outside party, that they are not responsible. The issue involved is whether the infant’s death was due to the gross negligence of ACS or was an unforeseeable event caused by an outsider.

In order to determine who is at fault for the infant’s murder, one must understand the laws that apply in this case. There are two arguments that affect the decision in this case. The first argument is that the representative for the little girl’s estate wants to serve interrogatories to determine who the estate will depose in this action. Under CPLR 3130, a party in a negligence action is not allowed to serve interrogatories and conduct depositions of the same party.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Robbery Results in Death of Victim

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 5, 1975, an elderly woman was living alone in her home in forest Hills, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said her home was attached to another home on the side of it and she had difficulties getting along with her neighbor. On December 5th , burglars broke in to her home and tied and gagged her as they rummaged through her home and stole her belongings including several fur coats. A piece of cloth was shoved into her mouth to work as a gag. During the robbery or shortly thereafter, the gag that was in her mouth cut off her oxygen supply and she suffocated.

On December 12, police arrested a 58 year-old used furniture store owner in Manhattan. He was not connected to the victim by any obvious means. The police also arrested two employees of the furniture salesman. One was a man with a lengthy criminal record for possession of stolen property and the other was a seventeen year-old female who was also an employee of the shop. The trio was transported to the 106th precinct where they were Mirandized. The seventeen year old girl had a history of drug usage and the police suspected that the events of that night were fueled by the prospect that the crime might be drug related.

However, when the trio was Mirandized, the defendant store owner stated that he understood his rights and that he did not want to make any statements. He did not request an attorney. After four and a half hours, the defendant called the detective to his cell and informed him that the wanted to speak to a District Attorney about a deal in his case. The officer informed him that the District Attorneys had already gone home for the day. The detective asked him if he wanted to tell him anything and the defendant did not respond.

Published on: April 16, 2012

Court Determines if Evidence Submitted by Defendant is Inadmissable

by Stephen Bilkis

A husband moved an action against his wife’s lawsuit to take a statement to be offered in court on his behalf by issuance of a request letter. The wife opposes the application of motion.

It started when a wife alleges that she was a victim of domestic violence committed by his husband. However, the husband moves for a letter requesting for information to take the statement of the wife’s sister. The husband argues for his sister-in-law’s granted permission for the recorded telephone conversation between his wife and his sister-in-law at which time his wife made certain admissions. The husband asserts that the recorded conversation contains statement which is necessary for the trial on the issues of custody and domestic violence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the husband asserts that a letter is requested because the prospective witness, his wife’s sister, resides in another country and therefore is not within the jurisdiction of the court. The counsel further stated that the wife’s sister is physically unable to travel to testify at the time of trial because she is suffering from a blood clot in her lungs. Further, the counsel neither annexed an affidavit by a person with actual knowledge nor certified medical documentation supporting the counsel’s assertion.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Interesting Case Shows the Evolution of Divorce Law

by Stephen Bilkis

It is amazing just how much domestic law and divorce law has changed over the past 50 years. Prior to 1967, a married couple who wanted to get divorced could only obtain a divorce on the grounds of adultery. If neither spouse committed adultery, the courts of the state would not allow the couple to divorce. In 1967, New York legislature added the additional grounds for divorce under mental cruelty. Section 170 of the Domestic Relations law was amended to state that a divorce may be maintained by a husband or a wife if they were dissolving the marriage on the grounds that they were suffering cruel and inhuman treatment at the hands of the other spouse. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this treatment would have to be so egregious that the conduct endangered the physical or mental well-being of the abused party and made it unsafe or improper for the couple to live together. These were also the grounds for any kind of legal separation.

In 1970, a case came before the courts of New York that dealt with a petition for a divorce. The couple was married in New York in 1957. The husband was 28 years old and the wife was 37. She had a 15-year-old son by a previous marriage. The couple had a daughter, who was ten years old at the time of the trial. The pair had a volatile relationship by any standards with four separations and three reconciliations between 1961 and 1967. Throughout their relationship, they only testified to one act of domestic violence. This incident was the cause for the first separation. In 1961, the husband was in the kitchen of the home with some friends. The daughter began to cry, and the husband told her to be quiet. The wife came in to the kitchen and struck him. She then told him to get out of the house. The husband filed for divorce in 1970 claiming mental anguish. The courts determined that even under the changes in law in 1967 that would allow a divorce for cruel and inhuman treatment, the arguments that this pair had were not serious enough to meet the minimal qualifications to get a divorce. The court stated that the responsibility for managing their differences was not the responsibility of the courts.

Rather, the court pointed out that it was the responsibility of the two married people to learn to get along with each other without relying on the courts to step in and solve their problems. The exact term was that the courts of justice have no cure for the ills that these people bring upon themselves. They must minister unto themselves to solve their differences. This is in stark contrast to the customs of today. Now a couple can divorce for any reason. There are no such stipulations that must be met in order for a divorce to be petitioned. A couple may still obtain a divorce under this type of situation, even if the other party does not want to get a divorce. This change in the law was enacted to protect the victims of domestic violence. An uncontested divorce action is possible without any kind of violence, adultery, or other misdeed.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Considers Revocation of Gun License in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 29, 2006, a man was involved in a domestic dispute with his wife. His wife told the New York Police Officers that during this dispute, her husband punched and kicked her and that she punched and kicked him. Pursuant to New York Law, the officers discovered that the husband had a residence permit for a target pistol. When they collected the firearms in the home, they discovered that the husband was also in possession of two long guns, rifles, for which he did not have a permit. The husband’s pistol license was suspended pending an investigation into the matter.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in June 30, 2006, a Temporary Order of Protection was issued in Kings county New York for the wife against the husband and for the husband against the wife. These protection orders were issued following several additional domestic disputes involving this couple. On September 19, 2006, after a heated verbal dispute with his wife in a public restaurant, the husband was arrested. The arrest was eventually voided. However the fact that he had a history of domestic violence and had been in possession of two long guns illegally in his home, his license to have any guns was revoked.

On December 30, 2006, the man requested an administrative hearing in order to repeal the revocation of his gun permit. His argument stemmed from his assertion that his wife had caused the domestic violence incidents and that he had never been notified of a renewal date for his long guns. The husband stated that he had not been aware that he was supposed to notify the police department of any arrests or orders of protection as they related to his possession of guns.