Articles Posted in Nassau

Queens Rape 16

The People of the State of New York are the respondents of the case. The appellant of the case is Khemwattie Bedessie. The case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York.

The appellant, Khemwattie Bedessie has asked for the time to consider the testimony from an expert based on the issue of reliability of the confession. A New York DWI Lawyer said in certain cases expert testimony for false confessions are admitted, the expert in this particular case did not offer a testimony that was relevant to the defendant or this particular interrogation. As a result of this the trial judge did not abuse the discretion to hold a Frye hearing in the matter to determine whether the expert that offered testimonies was offering information that is generally accepted within the science community.

Continue reading

Judges Peter B. Skelos, J.P., Ruth C. Balkin, Joseph Covello, and Sandra L. Sgroi, JJ are overseeing this case that is being heard in the Second Judicial Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in the case. The appellant in the case is Luis Gomez. The People are represented by Sharon Y. Brodt and John M. Castellano from the District Attorney’s office of Kew Gardens, New York. The appellant is represented by Rober DiDio from Kew Gardens.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment that was made by the Queens County Supreme Court on the 11th of January, 2008. The judgment found the defendant guilty of rape and course of sexual conduct against a child both in the second degree, first degree sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child.

Continue reading

This is a case of appeal being heard in the First Judicial Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The People of the State of New York are the respondents. The defendant and appellant of the case is Clarence Williams who is also known under the name Fletcher Anderson Worrell.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of New York County that convicted him of robbery in the first degree and rape in the first degree. The issue in front of the court is whether or not the statutory and constitutional rights of the defendant for a speedy trial were violated. The additional issue in this case is whether there should have been an inquiry of the jurors as to whether they had read anything in the newspaper about the trial before it began.

Case Background

This case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. The matter involves the attorneys Seymour S. Detsky and Herbert S. Kassner, who are also the respondents in the case. The petitioners in the case are Michael A. Gentile and Jeremiah B. McKenna.

The petitioners of this case, Michael A. Gentile and Jeremiah B. McKenna were directed to act as counsel and investigate the existence of unethical and improper practices engaged in by the respondent attorneys. The improper practices include representing sexually oriented enterprises.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the petitioners have moved to confirm the order that was made by Referee Frank J. McNabb that recommends charges that were made against Herbert S. Kassner are dismissed. It is also recommended that respondent Seymour S. Detsky should be disbarred. This report was referred to the court by a Notice of Motion made by the petitioner and dated the 30th of December, 1982.

Continue reading

This case involves the plaintiff Laura J. Donnell and the defendant Conrad Y. Stogel. The case is being heard during the IA term in the Queens County Supreme Court. The plaintiff is represented by David Grais from the law offices of Grais & Richards. The defendant is represented by William J. Davis from the law offices of Schulman, Berlin & Davis. Justice Edwin Kassoff is overseeing the case.

The action before the court is dealing with a contract that both the parties entered on 1982 when they stopped living together. The defendant has made a motion for the complaint from the plaintiff to be dismissed.

Case Background

Continue reading

The respondent in this matter are the People of the State of New York. The People of the State of New York are represented by the office of Patrick Henry, District Attorney in Riverhead. Michael Blakey is their counsel. The appellant of the case is Alan M. Buckmaster. He is being represented by Alan Schneier from Valley Stream. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

This is a case for appeal initiated by the defendant in regard to a judgment that was issued by the County Court of Suffolk County. Judge Rohl issued the judgment being appealed. The judgment convicted the defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. The defendant pled guilty to this crime.

Case Background

Continue reading

The complainant, a 19-year-old woman, reported to the town police that she had been raped and sodomized at gunpoint on a deserted beach near her home. The complainant testified that at about nine that evening she had received a phone call from a friend, telling her that he was in trouble and asking her to meet him at a nearby market in half an hour. Twenty minutes later, the same person called back and changed the meeting place. The complainant arrived at the agreed-upon place, shut off the car engine and waited. A New York DWI Lawyer said she saw a man approach her car and she unlocked the door to let him in. Only then did she realize that the person who had approached and entered the car was not the friend she had come to meet. According to the complainant, he pointed a gun at her, directed her to the nearby beach, and once they were there, raped and sodomized her.

The complainant arrived home around 11:00 P.M., woke her mother and told her about the attack. Her mother then called the police. Sometime between 11:30 P.M. and midnight, the police arrived at the complainant’s house. At that time, the complainant told the police she did not know who her attacker was. She was taken to the police station where she described the events leading up to the attack and again repeated that she did not know who her attacker was. At the conclusion of the interview, the complainant was asked to step into a private room to remove the clothes that she had been wearing at the time of the attack so that they could be examined for forensic evidence. While she was alone with her mother, the complainant told her that her male friend had been her attacker. The time was approximately 1:15 A.M. The complainant had known her friend for years, and she later testified that she happened to see him the night before the attack at a local convenience store.

Her mother summoned one of the detectives and the complainant repeated that the accused friend had been the person who attacked her. The complainant said that she was sure that it had been her friend because she had had ample opportunity to see his face during the incident. The complainant subsequently identified her friend as her attacker in two separate lineups. A New York DWI Lawyer said he was arrested and was indicted by the Grand Jury on one count of rape in the first degree, two counts of sodomy in the first degree and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Continue reading

The Facts:

Sometime in 1978, defendant and his wife got married. In October of that year, shortly after the birth of their son, defendant began to beat his wife.

In early 1980, the wife brought a proceeding in the Family Court in Erie County seeking protection from the defendant.

The accused was indicted for rape, assault and incest. The complainant is his thirty-six year old half-sister. The court dismissed the first count of the indictment charging rape by force, and the jury found the accused guilty of the remaining count of rape under the Penal Law, assault and incest.

A New York DWI Lawyer said he accused moved for an order arresting the judgment of conviction and setting aside the verdict of guilt as to the rape and incest on the ground that it was contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence. No effort is made to disturb the verdict of guilty of the simple assault.

The accused contends that the jury, by finding him guilty of simple assault only, negated any intent on his part to commit a rape. He also contends that the crime of incest could not arise from the gluttonous act, upon which the jury based its finding, the essence of such crime being an act of intercourse arising from the mutual consent of relatives within the prescribed line of consanguinity set forth in the Penal Law.

Continue reading