Criminal Procedure

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 18, 2012

Defendant Claims Court Abused its Discretion

by Stephen Bilkis

Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court were made. The proceedings found the accused man to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to a secure treatment facility.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused man has an extensive psychiatric and criminal history that includes convictions for two rapes and forcible touching involving three different female victims. At age 23, he was charged with rape in the third degree, sodomy in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child for having sexual relations with a girl under the age of 17 who was living with him.

According to the victim, they initially had a consensual (but illegal) sexual relationship, but the accused man thereafter repeatedly forced her to have sexual contact with him against her will. The accused man claimed that it was consensual and that he believed she was 17 years old, although he admitted having been advised that she was younger. He entered a guilty plea in satisfaction of all charges, and was sentenced to five months in jail and 10 years of probation. While on probation, the accused was charged with forcible touching for forcibly grabbing the private body parts of an 18-year-old employee of his drywall business. He later entered an Alford plea to that charge and was sentenced to a two-month jail term. After a hearing, New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused man was classified as a risk level III sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. That same month while still on probation, the accused was charged with first-degree rape for an incident in which he went with a friend to a female acquaintance’s apartment and forcibly held her down and raped her in her bedroom where he had lured her by deceiving her into believing that they needed to speak privately. He again was permitted to enter an Alford plea to the proceedings. Although he was released on parole supervision, the accused man’s parole was revoked months later when he was charged with numerous instances of violating the conditions of his release, including having prohibited contact with women and viewing erotic images of women, and admitted to one parole violation charge of exchanging electronic messages with a woman.

Published on: July 17, 2012

Defendant Claims he was Denied a Right to a Speedy Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The genesis of the proceeding is a notorious incident involving a brutal rape and robbery in 1973 in Manhattan. The issues presented are whether the man’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated, and also whether the trial court should have conducted an inquiry of the jurors to determine whether they had read an article in a prominent newspaper about the trial on the day it commenced.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said while awaiting trial on his case, the man was arrested for an attempted murder and rape. When arrested, the man gave his name, his date of birth and his residence in Kings County, and his prior residence in Manhattan. He claimed that he had a wife who lived in Bronx. The man was tried but the jury, however, could not reach a verdict, and a mistrial was declared.

The man, under the different name, was convicted in Queens County of attempted murder and rape, and sentenced to a term of 10 years. He pleaded guilty in his case, with the understanding that he could seek to have his plea vacated if his conviction in Queens were reversed on appeal. The man was sentenced to a term of 10 years, which was to run concurrently with the term imposed on the Queens County conviction.

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 15, 2012

Court Hears Case Involving Wire Fraud

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in this case are Michael and Mary Marcantonio. The defendants in the matter are Michael Picozzi, III, Viola, Benedetti, Azzolini & Morano, LLC, Project Real Estate, Inc., and John McHugh. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County. Judge Michele M. Woodard is hearing the case.

Case Information

In the first motion sequence the defendants Michael Picozzi, III, and Viola, Benedetti, Azzolini & Morano, LLC have moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that there is no cause of action stated.

Published on: July 15, 2012

Attorney Defendant Suspended for DWI

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with the respondent, Philip S. Lapenta, who is an attorney. The petitioner in the matters is the Grievance Committee fro the Tenth Judicial District. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, Appellate Division.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent was admitted to the bar on the 21st of February, 1973. On the 19th of March, 2008, the Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee served the respondent with a verified petition that contained four charges of misconduct.

Published on: July 15, 2012

Defendant Gives Voluntary Confession

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County, First District. Judge Salvatore A. Alamia is hearing the case. The plaintiff of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Colin O’Reilly.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant has been charged with driving while intoxicated, failing to maintain lane violating traffic law 1128, and two counts of failing to stop at a stop sign, violating traffic law 1172.

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 13, 2012

Plaintiff Requests Punitive Damages in White Collar Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the case is Joachim Harris. The defendants in the case are Chandra M. Young, et al. The case is being heard in the New York State Supreme Court. The Honorable Melvin S. Barasch is the justice hearing the case.

Case Facts and Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the action in this case comes from the sale of a real property that was owned by the plaintiff. The property is located at 176 Malta Street in the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiff sold the property to defendant Michael Greene on the 24th of August, 2001. The price was $255,000. The plaintiff states that he was defrauded by the plaintiffs as they withheld all but $180,000 from the sale of the home.