Suffolk County

Published on: May 21, 2012

Court Discusses Reasonable Suspicion of Police

by Stephen Bilkis

Two police officers in a patrol car received a report over the radio that a fight had just been witnessed and called in at 1411 Grand Concourse. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the anonymous report stated that one of those who engaged in the fight had a knife. The only descriptions the witness gave about the two persons who were involved in the fight wore a red jacket and a dark jacket with a white stripe.

The two police officers drove to the address given in the report but they saw no one wearing the red jacket and dark jacket with a white stripe. When they got there a call for assistance was broadcast over the car radio. The two police officers responded. As they were heading toward the location of the other police officers who called for back-up, they saw three men. The officers got off their police car and headed for the three men. One of the men saw the two uniformed police officers and started running. The police officers gave chase and as they were chasing down the man, they saw him throw something. They finally caught up with the man and they also found what he threw away: it was a handgun. The police officers arrested him and charged him with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Even before the arraignment, the accused (the man who ran and threw away a handgun) moved to suppress the gun as evidence. He claims that the gun is not admissible as evidence as it was obtained by the police without probable cause. The police officers’ actions were not justified in chasing the man and in arresting him.

Published on: May 10, 2012

Robbery Defendant Claims Circumstantial Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused man and his accomplice as well as the two female complainants boarded a subway train at 125th Street. Once on the train, the accused man and his accomplice sat down near, although not immediately beside, each other and engaged in a conversation.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that thereafter, the accomplice began to verbally harass the complainants. The accused man did not join in and in fact eventually moved by himself to a different subway car. When the train arrived at Zerega Avenue, the complainants got off followed by the accused man’s accomplice. It was shortly after leaving the train that the complainants were accosted on the subway platform by the accomplice and robbed of various possessions at knifepoint. One of the complainants testified that while the accomplice relieved her and her companion of their possessions, the accused, who had apparently also exited the train at Zarega Avenue, stood some 65 to 75 feet away; he was situated at the top of the stairwell providing access to and from the platform. While the first complainant at first claimed to have observed the accused glancing alternately down the stairs and in the direction of the ongoing robbery, she later stated that the accused was simply standing at the top of the stairs–that she could not see his face and that she did not witness any communication between the accused and the accomplice while the robbery was in progress.

Once the robbery was complete, the accomplice joined the accused and the two fled the station together. A short time later, when they were apprehended in the vicinity of the station, the accomplice was still in possession of the items taken from the complainants; the accused, on the other hand, had no stolen property and disclaimed any relationship with the accomplice, stating that he don’t know the guy and he was just asking him for directions.

Published on: April 26, 2012

Husand Moves to Violate Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple co-owned two separate apartments in one building in Manhattan. A larger apartment was their family home and the smaller apartment was the office of the wife. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the couple was having marital problems and the wife moved out of their larger apartment and she had been living in the smaller apartment.

In May 1987, the husband slammed the wife into a wall and she injured her elbow. In October 1987, the husband knocked his wife to the floor and caused her to break her ankle. He forced her to walk on her broken ankle and threw books at her. On June 24, 1988, the husband punched the wife in the mouth and knocked one of her teeth out because she locked herself in the larger apartment and would not let the husband in.

The wife finally filed a complaint for domestic violence against her husband. She also filed a complaint for assault plus harassment. During the arraignment the district attorney asked for a temporary order of protection be issued effective until July 17, 1988. No argument was heard and there were no testimonies presented by the wife or the husband. The arraigning judge issued the temporary order of protection. The husband was released on his own recognizance.

Published on: April 19, 2012

Plaintiff Sues Police for not Enforcing Order of Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 13, 1992, a woman pulled up to an area in Nassau County where she saw police officers working a car accident. She got out of her car and screamed for them to help her. She advised them that her husband was in her car with a knife and he was threatening to hurt her. She advised that she had an active order of protection against him. She showed the officers her order and asked them to help. The officers told her that they would take care of him after she left. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said they failed to arrest her husband for the violation of the order of protection.

The next morning as she prepared to leave for work for the day, she exited her home. Her husband was hiding outside of the residence when she walked out. He attacked her with a machete causing serious bodily harm to her. She contends that if the police officers had done their duty and enforced the order of protection, she would not have been injured because her husband would have been in jail.

She filed a civil suit against the county where the officers worked for personal injury damages. The county maintained that they could only be partially responsible for the injuries that occurred to her because her husband was more culpable than they were. Under New York law, CPLR article 16, a joint tortfeasor’s liability for non-economic losses is proportional upon proof that it is 50% or less culpable for the personal injury. There are exemptions to this rule, domestic violence is not one of them. The court determined that in order to waive this rule, domestic violence would have to be added as one of the exemptions. The court just was not ready to create all new case law that would include domestic violence cases in the exemptions. Prior to this case being appealed, the victim had been awarded $1.5 million dollars by a jury. The County challenged the trial court’s ruling that barred article 16 exemptions from the case. The trial court had determined that there was a domestic violence exemption to article 16 and that apportionment did not apply because the case involved an intentional tort. The appellate division reversed the judgment holding that none of the exemptions applied. The appellate court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial.

Published on: April 6, 2012

Family Court and Criminal Court have Concurrent Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever an incident of domestic violence occurs, the courts and law enforcement officers are required to file reports and take other actions without discretion. One of the prescribed actions that is required of officers is that they must make an arrest if the domestic violence occurred in the presence of a child under the age of 18. If the child is a witness to the domestic violence, the parents are charged with either child abuse or child neglect depending on the situation. While this appears to be a good idea on paper, it can lead to long-term issues that may not be appropriate in some situations.

Sometimes, isolated incidents of domestic violence occur in situations where it will never happen again. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the concept of creating a law requiring the parents be charged for an argument in the presence of a child is wrought with problems. Usually, police and prosecutors use good judgment in cases. However, sometimes it appears that only poor judgment is present. In many cases, criminal charges of child neglect are placed on parents who do not deserve to be charged. When a victim of domestic violence is charged with child neglect, it only creates a situation where that victim may not report additional incidents of domestic violence for fear of losing their child. The court tends to recognize that the intent of the law is to protect the children in homes where violence and fighting is the norm rather than the exception. Still, cases where the incident was isolated manage to get through the cracks. When that happens, it is usually family court that notices it.

Family court handles most of the domestic violence actions, but they have concurrent jurisdiction if a criminal offense occurred during the incident. In some cases, the criminal case is charged, but later dismissed because it was not supported by facts in the court. A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said the problem is that Family Court may have another case pending that the criminal charge affects. In one case, which occurred in Suffolk County, New York on March 26, 2010, a father requested an appeal to overturn an action of family court.

Published on: April 4, 2012

Court Discusses Violation of Order of Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On 22 February 1997, the defendant, after a parental visit, brought his children directly to his then wife (now former wife) in contravention to a court order of protection (hereinafter COOP). Thereafter, a verbal and physical confrontation occurred between the defendant and his wife. The COOP provided that the defendant was to return his children to the local police station.

The defendant was indicted and tried for crimes involved in this incident and another.

On 24 March 1999 after a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of assault in the second degree, two counts of assault in the third degree, and two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree.

Published on: March 11, 2012

Defendant Charged with Robbery Claims They Did not have a Weapon

by Stephen Bilkis

Vincent Knowles was charged with one count of robbery in the first degree. He admitted in the hearing before the court that he did steal money, a wallet, jewelry and subway tokens from a Henry Laylock. He also testified that he placed his hand in his pocket, which looked like he had a gun so Mr. Laylock will give him his valuables. The fact was he was unarmed. He pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said if a person displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm when he forcibly steals a property, he is guilty of robbery in the second degree according to the law.

The Trial Court had accepted Mr. Knowles plea, and the case was given to the Supreme Court Appellate Division for review. The Court of Appeals in their review said they need to be one to check if the letter of the law was correctly interpreted in this case. The law states a person who “displays what appears to be” a firearm during a robbery is guilty of robbery in the second degree. The focus they said is to be on the word appears instead of display. In this case, Mr. Knowles did not display anything as his hand was in his pocket during the robbery. In his testimony, he admitted he pretended it was a gun.

Before any revision to the Penal Law, the only law which pertained to firearms was with the robbery in the first degree, according to a Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer. This is when a person is armed with a dangerous weapon when committing a robbery. It was not defined by the unrevised law, but the court had always ruled to show the weapon needs to be working and loaded for it to be deemed dangerous. If the gun is inoperable and not loaded, it fell on the robbery in the third degree. So even in the previous statute, this was not a robbery in the first degree.

Published on: February 25, 2012

Defendant Deemed Mentally Unstable

by Stephen Bilkis

Many sex crimes are committed by those who are not just merely in their normal state of minds. Majority of those who are offenders of such are usually found out to be of unstable. In this particular case discussed, the accused is hidden by the initials of P.H. He was seen first at a rooftop looking over a woman while masturbating and using cocaine. The victim was sleeping at that time when the suspect went inside her apartment and harassed her before he went out with the victim’s purse.

P.H. had a wide background of doing the act of public masturbation before. With this, the court is convinced that he is an exhibitionist and very much dependent on the use of cocaine. Even if he was placed on SIST, it still showed that he had a wide history too of burglary and trespassing. A witness that was called to stand for this case was Officer Ramirez. According to the Officer, P.H. was guilty of still doing these acts even after his release from 2009 and his placement on SIST. The masturbation in public places that he caught P.H. for were done in bathroom stalls that were enclosed.

With the help of a New York Criminal Lawyer, it was also discovered that he was fired from his messenger job. He was not able to explain the reason behind his termination but it was all revealed during one group counseling session. This happened due to a dispute over Metrocards issuance. Another witness was Ms. Smith who caught him taking pictures of her under her skirt with the use of his cellphone. But somehow, in the public place, P.H. made it appear that the victim was the one stealing his phone.

Published on: February 17, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Crime with Minor Boys

by Stephen Bilkis

Edgar Bagarozy was convicted of sex crimes that included two counts of second degree sodomy for four instances of improper sexual contact with three young boys. Mr. Bagarozy was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 3 ½ to 7 years. Each victim testified that he had allowed Mr. Bagarozy to engage in oral sodomy in exchange for a trip to the movies or an amusement park.

Charges involving one of the victims, identified as Dennis M., were dismissed after the boy recanted. He claimed that he had falsely accused Mr. Bagarozy after being intimidated by the police. In the case of the two other victims, Angel J. and Manny O., Mr. Bagarozy was convicted of the sodomy charges.

The defendant opted not to testify at trial, despite the fact that the prosecution focused on his sexual preference and submitted a large volume of evidence attesting to his previous sexual acts involving young boys. Specifically, evidence was introduced regarding Mr. Bagarozy’s affiliation with NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) as proof of his intent to commit sodomy. Following his conviction, Mr. Bagarozy’s criminal defense lawyer filed an appeal with the Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department.

Published on: February 16, 2012

Defendant Charged with Multiple Sex Offenses

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 16, 1997, a male identified only as C.B. made a videotaped confession to a Bronx Assistant District Attorney following his arrest. During the confession, C.B. discussed numerous criminal offenses and described on at least 11 different occasions on which he had entered private residences unlawfully and in some cases, masturbated onto a sleeping female victim. He also claims to be an exhibitionist and states that he needs help because he has a problem or illness that made him repeatedly commit the sex crimes.

C.B.’s criminal defense attorney subsequently filed a motion with the Bronx County Supreme Court to exclude statements made in the confession that related to the charges he was arrested on. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the motion also included a request to exclude testimony from the victims and the minutes of the Grand Jury proceedings. Specifically, defense counsel argued that the victim should be precluded from testifying at trial since the statements offered would be irrelevant; that the videotaped confession should be excluded since it contains evidence of unrelated and uncharged crimes; that the videotape itself was prejudicial; and that C.B. was not competent to testify as to his own mental capacity.

An Article 10 hearing was scheduled on April 9, 2009, to determine whether the tape confession should be admitted. Defense counsel also argued that the tape’s admission would violate C.B.’s constitutional rights and that Grand Jury testimony should be precluded since it was never referenced in the charges or plea allocution and should not be disclosed without a court order.