Long Island

Published on: July 19, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygiene Law

by Stephen Bilkis

On 6 January 1992, respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree robbery and single counts of first-degree burglary, first-degree rape, and first-degree sodomy. The plea satisfied charges arising from two separate criminal incidents, the robbery of a gas station attendant and a home invasion, for which respondent was arrested and indicted separately in 1988. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 8 to 16 years, running from his arrest. In July 1999, respondent was released to parole supervision after serving 11 years and eight months of his sentence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 19 May 2000, he was again arrested and indicted separately for three robberies. On 12 December 2001, he pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree robbery, for each of which he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 2 to 4 years, and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, for which he was sentenced to prison for one year. The indictment satisfied by respondent’s plea to the weapon-possession count also accused him of sexual abuse. These sentences ran concurrently to each other but consecutively to the undischarged portion of the indeterminate sentence imposed on respondent in 1992. On 6 January 2006, he was released to parole supervision.

In July 2006, respondent was returned to prison for violating the conditions of his parole. In April 2007, he was again released to parole supervision but went back to prison after violating the conditions of his parole in August of that year.

Published on: July 18, 2012

Defendant on Trial for Larceny by Embezzlement

by Stephen Bilkis

An Armored Courier Corp. warehouse in Bronx County was burglarized and robbed of some $11 million by individuals unconnected to the company, who were later apprehended and prosecuted. In the aftermath of the robbery, the Bronx County District Attorney’s office focused its attention on the company’s-own business practices. A series of indictments charging the company and its principals with various counts of grand larceny and misapplication of property ensued. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he question presented for consideration is whether the indictments’ allegations concerning the companies handling of the money entrusted to their care would, if proven, support convictions for the crimes charged.

The six indictments collectively charge the company officials, the Armored Courier Corp. and the Investigations Corp. with several counts of grand larceny in the second degree and misapplication of property. At the time the indictments were issued, the company was principally engaged in transporting and storing large sums of cash and performing related services on behalf of its clients. The company officials include the president of the Armored Courier Corp., the senior vice-president of that corporation, and the vice-president and cashier of the Valley National Bank, which played a role in one of the alleged misappropriation schemes.

The case has a complex factual and procedural history. The grand larceny and misapplication charges arose out of four separate courses of conduct, which the State of New York claim demonstrate the accused parties’ criminal mishandling of their clients’ funds. The first Grand Jury to consider the State’s evidence handed up five indictments. Of the five, three were dismissed entirely with leave to re-present. The other two indictments were sustained against the company president and senior vice-president but dismissed against the only named corporate opponent, the Armored Courier Corp. The second Grand Jury handed up four new indictments, naming the company president, the senior vice-president, the Armored Courier Corp. and the Investigations Corp. as opponents. All six outstanding indictments were dismissed by the Presiding Judge on the ground that the proof before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. Two of the indictments, which named the company president and senior vice-president as opponents, were reinstated on the State’s appeal to the Appellate Division, and the State, as well as the company president and senior vice-president were granted leave to take cross appeals to the court.

Published on: July 16, 2012

Defendant Claims No Probable Cause for Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in this case is Julius Bailey. The defendants in the matter are the Suffolk County Police Department and the Suffolk County Legal Department. The case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County in the state of New York. Judge C. Stephen Hackeling is overhearing the case.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff is seeking to recover $1,492 for damages sustained to his vehicle while it was in the custody of the defendant, the County. The County has placed an application through the court to have the complaint against them dismissed. This application has been deferred and will be decided along with the small claims action of the case.

Case Facts

Published on: July 14, 2012

Attorney in Case Charged with Perjury

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with David A. Appell, who is an attorney and the respondent in the case. The petitioner in the matter is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

This is a disciplinary proceeding that has been instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.

Case Background

Published on: July 7, 2012

Defendant Claims Charges Should Not Have Been Combined

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York is the respondent in the case. The appellant in the matter is Morris Pinkas, also referred to as Morris Pinkasovitz. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

The defendant is appealing an order made by the Queens County Supreme Court. The order was made on the 13th of June, 1988 and convicted the defendant of sexual abuse in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.

Case Background

Published on: July 6, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction of Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter dealing with the anonymous respondent, Trevon Y. and the appellant the Presentment Agency. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The Judges hearing the case are Mark C. Dillon, J.P., Ariel E. Belen, Ruth C. Balkin, and Leonard B. Austin, JJ.

The Presentment Agency is appealing a juvenile proceeding which took place in the Family Court of Queens County. The original order from the Queens County Family Court is dated the 27th of April, 2010 and dismissed the original petition of the case with prejudice.

Case Background

Published on: July 5, 2012

Defendant Uses Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs of the case. The defendant in the matter is Joon Ho Chin. The case is being heard by Judge Randall T. Eng.

The defendant is using the doctrine for collateral estoppel in this particular case. The defendant, Joon Ho Chin, moves to preclude the plaintiff, the People of the State of New York, from introducing evidence that he used physical force in the alleged rape against the complainant of the case.

Case History

Published on: June 25, 2012

Defendant Claim Law He Was Convicted of Has Been Repealed

by Stephen Bilkis

In 2007, a man was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The case stemmed from an incident that was witnessed by an on duty uniformed police officer in Chemung County, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officer was on regular patrol when he stated that he observed a van pull alongside a jeep that was about twenty to 25 vehicle paces in front of him. He testified at trial that he saw a light-skinned male who was wearing a white sweatshirt that had a design on the sleeves. He was wearing a light colored hat. The man leaned out of the passenger side window in the front of the minivan. He fired a pistol at the jeep and sped off when the officer began to chase him. During the pursuit, the passenger in the front of the van jumped out and ran. The officer followed him on foot and apprehended him hiding in bushes a short distance away. He was still wearing the light colored sweatshirt with stripes on the shoulders but he only had on one boot. The missing boot and the hat were located nearby as was a Sig Sauer P-239 9 millimeter pistol. A magazine that fit the weapon was located in a parking lot near the area where the defendant had fled the van. Ballistic testing on the pistol verified that the weapon was operable and that the bullet and casing evidence from the scene were consistent with the test bullets that were fired from that pistol.

Upon apprehension, the defendant stated that he was not the shooter and that the shooter was actually another man who was in the van. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the trial court did not think that the explanation provided by the defendant was reasonable and he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment. One of the contentions that the defendant made when he filed an appeal was that one of the laws that he was convicted of had been repealed before he was sentenced. The law was repealed after he was indicted and before he was sentenced. The court of appeals agreed that this charge on his indictment should have been dismissed prior to the sentencing phase because the law had been changed.

While it may not seem common, it is more common than one would think. Laws are changed and revised every year, during this time of fluctuation in the laws, people are still being stopped and arrested. Long Island Criminal Lawyer said there is usually a time delay in the time between the change of a law, and the enactment of the changes. An officer and sometimes even officers of the court are not notified immediately upon the change of a law. It can be several months from the time that a law is changed to the time that the information on the change in the law reaches the courts and police officers. During that time, people are still being charged and convicted of the offenses. Defense attorneys are necessary to ensure that the defendant does not have to serve time on a charge that was repealed prior to his arrest. It is unreasonable to have a defendant serve time for a conviction on a law that does not exist at the time that his sentence if read. In this case, the defense attorney caught the problem and filed the appeal that enabled the courts to correct the injustice before the defendant spent years in prison for a crime that was not valid at the time of his sentencing.

Published on: June 19, 2012

Defendant Contends Violation of Drug Reform Act

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 21 March 2002, defendant was sentenced in Michigan to a two-year probation following his plea of guilty to attempted home invasion in the first degree under Criminal Law.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 22 August 2003, defendant was charged in Bronx County with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees, respectively.

Published on: June 18, 2012

Error Occurs in Collection of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

Often, questions arise in the court system that involve how to handle mistakes that happen in the justice system. Among these mistakes can be the mishandling of evidence. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that while losing evidence can be a devastating blow to a prosecution’s case, it is even more so when it in involves a sexual abuse crime. The physical evidence that is collected in a rape kit cannot be replaced if the kit is lost or mishandled. Unfortunately, it happens more often than the departments involved would like to admit. Large city departments have the biggest problem with ensuring that the chain of custody is kept pure.

In one case, that occurred on October 18, 1991, involved a rape. The victim was forced into the apartment and bedroom of an acquaintance where he pulled a gun on her. He forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. She reported the rape to the police in Queens County. The police officers transported her to Queens Hospital Center where she was examined by a doctor and a rape kit was completed. The offender was arrested on November 5, 1991 when he reported to his parole officer.

On January 2, 1992, the defense lawyer made an omnibus motion requesting the information that was recovered from the examination of the rape kit. He was advised that the rape kit evidence would be provided as soon as it was examined. On April 16, 1992,the defense team again requested an opportunity to examine the rape kit and the resulting laboratory analysis. Again, the police evidence unit stated that the results should come in shortly. The results were never given to the defense. After several failed attempts to obtain a copy of the analysis of the evidence, the police evidence unit finally admitted that the rape kit had been misplaced. They stated that after researching the whereabouts of the rape kit, it was discovered that the kit had never been submitted to the police department crime lab for analysis.