Articles Posted in New York City

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in May 1990, members of the narcotics teams arrested three men for street narcotics sales to undercover police officers. In each case, both the arrest and the evident conduct constituting the crimes was charged occurred entirely within the county and pursuant to an agreement between the district attorney and the special narcotics prosecutor, the criminal actions were commenced by the filing of felony complaints in court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that all the three men were arraigned and their cases adjourned for action by the special narcotics grand jury and/or possible disposition by way of waiver of indictment and the filing of superior court’s information. The counsel orally moved for dismissal of the felony complaints on the ground that the court had lacked of geographical authority as defined in law. With the concurrence of all the parties, the court reserved decision and set a schedule for the filing of written motions and memoranda of law.

While the court was waiting from the city of New York’s response, the prosecutor presented the two men’s matters to a special narcotics grand jury. A true bill was voted with respect to each and the charges were filed. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the indictments are currently pending in other special narcotics Supreme Court parts. One of the men has actually entered a guilty plea to a lesser included offense. Consequently, the city of New York moved to dismiss the charges against the other men because the laboratory report showed that the items sold contained no controlled substance. Apparently, the motion was granted by the court.

Published on:

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The case deals with an appeal being made by Otha Beard. The respondent of the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant is appealing a verdict from a judgment made by the County Court of Suffolk County that was rendered on the 8th of May, 1979 and convicted him of criminally negligent homicide.

Case Discussion

The defendant’s guilt in this matter was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. At the time of the incident the defendant was driving his vehicle with three passengers inside it. He was going approximately 35 miles an hour. All of the passengers had smoked marijuana (marijuana possession). Quite suddenly, one of the passengers told the defendant to stop the car. The passenger was a fifteen year old girl. At first the defendant ignored her and continued to drive. She continuously repeated her request for the car to be stopped and threatened to jump out of the car if he did not stop.

Continue reading

Published on:

A woman is charged with three counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon. She has moved to suppress the firearms that were seized from her and her boyfriend’s house following the issuance of a search warrant that was targeted not at her, but at her boyfriend. She contends that the search warrant violated her constitutional rights because there was an absence of probable cause to search the premises. Furthermore, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to believe that the woman’s boyfriend lived at the house and the inclusion in the warrant of a no-knock provision was unjustified.

On June 12, 2008, a police officer obtained a no-knock search warrant to search the premises of a house in New York, where the woman resides with her boyfriend. Specifically, the warrant was sought to permit a search for marijuana possession, firearms, and ammunition.

According to his warrant application, the police officer believed that the woman’s boyfriend, whom he had been trying to put on surveillance, was a marijuana dealer. The police officer obtained information from the gas and electric company that an individual identified as the woman’s boyfriend used the gas & electric utility services.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Facts:

A member of the New York City Police Department was detailed to work with the Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force (Task Force). His usual assignment with the Task Force was as an undercover officer (office-one), and that was the assignment he was performing, when, on 16 July 1981, he met with an informant who later introduced him with the co-defendant.

Thereafter, meetings were set and arrangements were made for officer-one to buy quantities of cocaine (cocaine possession). The co-defendant said that he could deliver a pound from someone that he knew, the herein defendant. Accompanied by another officer (officer-two), upon their meet, defendant only promised to deliver two ounces of cocaine for the reason that they didn’t know each other. Subsequently, the parties agreed to buy the two ounces of cocaine. Shortly after officer-two produced a brown bag with money, and, while defendant was looking into the money bag, officer-two placed defendant under arrest.

Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiff in this matter is Christine Malafi, who is County Attorney for Suffolk County in the state of New York. The defendants in the matter are Zachary G. Moisan and a 1967 Chevy that has the VIN number 125177G120642. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the state of New York located in Suffolk County. Judge Arthur G. Pitts is hearing the case.

This case involves a civil forfeiture proceeding. The plaintiff and claiming authority in the matter, Christine Malafi, the Suffolk County Attorney, seeks a forfeiture of a 1967 Chevy that is owned by the defendant, Zachary G. Moisan.

Case Facts

Continue reading

Published on:

The Facts:

Defendant has a history of being arrested under different names.

On 12 August 1972, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant was arrested for possession of burglar’s tools while on a fire escape. He gave a name, name-one, with a date of birth of 30 December 1946 and an address of 180 Saratoga Avenue in Kings County.

Continue reading

Published on:

On September 25, 2003, the Associate Village Justice of the Supreme Court, issued a search warrant directed to “any police officer of the County of Nassau.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said the search warrant found that there is probable and reasonable cause for the issuance of the warrant to make a search with the inspector and his agents, between 09/25/03 and 10/02/03 in the hours between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. of the entire premises in 335 Princeton Street, Westbury, NewYork. The warrant categorically states that the seizure of the evidence shall be limited to the taking of still photographs and videotape pictures of the inside and outside of the premises.

The Senior Building Inspector of the Village of Westbury believed that the subject premises has been used or is being used as a two (2) family dwelling and the cellar is being used as an illegal apartment dwelling in violation of sec. 79-2, sec. 83-6, sec. 112-7, sec. 184-4, sec. 248-6 A and sec. 248-283 of the code of the Village of Westbury and NewYork State Multiple Dwelling Law sec. 30 and sec. 34. A Supervisor in the Department of Public Works testified that the garbage generated from the home was 3 to 4 times the normal amount at every pick up.

Subject to the defendant’s motion to suppress, the parties stipulated to the receipt into evidence of the “return” on the warrant indicating what was seized during the search.

Published on:

The Facts:

Two witnesses testified at a fact-finding hearing.

On 7 September 1978, sometime after 5:30 P.M., the victim alleges that he heard rocks strike the side of his house. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that such an event had occurred previously and he testified that he knew that the persons who were responsible for those past acts lived across the street from him. Accordingly, he armed himself with a stick and proceeded to go across the street to a green house. The green house was the home of the two respondents. As he approached the house, the witness testified that sticks were thrown at him. While he was attempting to knock on the door, one of the respondents approached him shaking a stick. Fearful of being hit with the stick, the victim left the porch, intending to return to his own home. At that point he struck one of the respondents; it was not clear which one, on the “backside”. Two or three seconds later the other respondent spoke to him and said to him: “You hit my brother.” This respondent then struck the witness in the arm with a broom or shovel handle. The witness testified that he then fell to the ground and the same respondent struck him in the eye with a metal tipped stick which caused his eye to be enucleated. As a result, the victim has lost the sight of his left eye.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Facts:

Defendant, his brother, and another man entered the house of a woman and robbed her at gunpoint. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the woman identified defendant as the one who wielded the gun during the robbery. A police officer was on patrol when he saw three men run out of the woman’s house, followed by her screaming for help. The officer gave chase and managed to arrest the brother, who was found to have a loaded revolver in his front pocket. The brother provided defendant’s name and stated that the defendant had placed the gun in his pocket while they fled the woman’s residence.

Thereafter, defendant was arrested at his home. Upon arrest, defendant stated that the arresting officers got nothing on him and that they got the gun of his brother.

Published on:

The plaintiff and appellee in this case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Roy L. Schmidt, III. The case is being heard in the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant, Roy L. Schmidt, III, is appealing the conviction that he is an Armed Career Criminal as defined by the Armed Career Criminal Act. Roy L. Schmidt, III in the original case pleaded guilty to the conspiracy of possessing a pipe bomb and of being a convicted felon with possession of the pipe bomb. He is challenging the sentencing from the district court. His reasoning is that the determination of his sentencing used a prior conviction of theft of a firearm was listed as a violent felony for the purpose of convicting him under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Continue reading

Contact Information