New York

Published on: July 14, 2012

Defendant Makes Voluntary Confession

by Stephen Bilkis

Suffolk DWI 15

The plaintiff in this case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is David A. Behling. The case is being heard in the First District of the District Court of Suffolk County. Judge Salvatore A. Alamia is presiding over the case.

The defendant in this case is being charged with driving while intoxicated, aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI)http://www.newyorkcriminallawyer24-7.com/lawyer-attorney-1732535.html, and driving while intoxicated per se. A Dunaway, Mapp, and Huntley hearing has been held in the matter to determine which evidence that has been found against the defendant will be admissible in court. The evidence in question includes statement made by the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant were given the opportunity to submit a written closing statement to the court. The court has received the closing statement from the defendant. The people failed to submit a closing statement and have therefore waived this right.

Published on: July 13, 2012

Defendant Contests Alcotest Records Being Admitted

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The defendant is Leonard DiBari. The case is being heard in Westchester County, Justice City of the Town of North Castle. Judge Elyse Lazansky is overseeing the case.

A New York DWI Lawyer said the defendant, Leonard DiBari, is charged with driving while ability impaired by alcohol. During the course of the non-jury trial and pretrial hearings the defense has objected the prosecution’s use of simulator solution certificates and certified calibration records.

Case Background

Published on: July 13, 2012

Admission Inadmissible Prior to Miranda Rights Being Read

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant in the matter is Mary G. Moran. The case is being heard in the District Court of Suffolk County, First District. Judge Salvatore A. Alamia is presiding over the hearing.

The defendant has been charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), speeding, and failing to maintain a lane. A Dunaway, Huntley and refusal hearing has been held in the case to determine which evidence will be submitted in the trial. The evidence in question includes statements that were allegedly made by the defendant and the refusal of submitting to a breathalyzer test by the defendant.

Case Facts

Published on: July 12, 2012

Defendant Asks for the Return of his Vehicle

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with the Plaintiff/Claiming Authority, Christine Malafi, who is the County Attorney for Suffolk County. The defendants in the matter are Edward J. Radwinsky and the Ford Motor Credit Company. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York that is located in Suffolk County.

Case Background

A New York DWI Lawyer said on the 19th of December, 2004, the defendant was arrested for operating the subject Ford while he was intoxicated. He was driving in the eastbound lane of the service road on the Long Island Expressway in the city of Hauppauge, New York. The defendant was given a breathalyzer test after being taken into custody. The breathalyzer showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.19%, which is above the legal limit. This resulted in the defendant being arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Published on: July 12, 2012

Defendant Contests Car Being Taken During DWI Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

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

Published on: July 11, 2012

Defendant Contends Miranda Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the First District Court of Suffolk County. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The defendant of the case is Jose R. Rivas. Judge M. Filiberto is overseeing the proceeding.

There has been a combined Probable Cause, Huntley, and Refusal Hearing in this matter. The Court has found the following facts in the case.

Case Facts

Published on: July 11, 2012

Court Discusses Rehabilitation Program for Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this matter is the State of New York. The respondent of the case is John VanDuyn Southworth. Southworth is responding both for himself and as the executor of the estate of Alice Keegan Southworth, deceased. The case is being heard in the Fourth Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The case before the court involves an issue involving an experimental driver’s rehabilitation program that was established by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. The question before the court is whether the state of New York can be held liable for issuing an interim driver’s license to a person that has a record of alcohol related driving violations.

Case Background

Published on: July 11, 2012

Court Decides Case Where Defendant is Police Officer

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case of appeal being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the state of New York. The appellant in the matter is Charles O. Sharkey. The respondents in the matter are the Police Department of the town of South Hampton, et al.

The petitioner is appealing a decision that was made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County on the 18th of December, 1989. The Suffolk County Supreme Court dismissed the case, which was a review of a determination that was made by the Police Department in the town of South Hampton. The Police Department had terminated the petitioner’s employment after he pleads guilty to the misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated (DWI).

Case Background and Discussion

Published on: July 9, 2012

Parole Board Decides Whether to Grant Discretionary Parole Release

by Stephen Bilkis

Petitioner GAROFOLO, an inmate in the care and custody of the New York State Department of Correction Services since 1977, is currently incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, Dannemora, New York. He was convicted in 1977 of a sex crime of Rape in the First Degree, Sodomy in the First Degree and Burglary in the Second Degree for his attack on an estranged girlfriend. For these crimes petitioner GAROFOLO received indeterminate concurrent sentences of zero to 25 years each on the rape and sodomy charges and zero to 15 years on the burglary charge. Also, in 1977, New York DWI Lawyer said he was convicted of two counts of Murder in the Second Degree for his killing of Catherine Wilkinson with a police baton. Petitioner GAROFOLO dumped the victim’s body in a wooded area in Suffolk County, near a bar he went to with his victim. For the murder convictions he was sentenced to 25 years to life on each murder count, to be served concurrently with the sex crime of rape, sodomy and burglary sentences.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, petitioner GAROFOLO had his initial Parole Board Release interview, which was his earliest possible release date. At that time, he was denied discretionary parole release. Then, he had three subsequent parole release interviews and was denied parole at each interview. GAROFOLO, after parole denial, perfected and filed an administrative appeal which was ultimately denied. After exhausting his administrative remedies he appealed his parole denial by commencing a petition. Petitioner seeks an order, pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, vacating the July 6, 2008 decision of the New York State Board of Parole (PAROLE BOARD) denying him parole and granting him either immediate release on parole or a de novo parole hearing. Respondent FELIX ROSA (ROSA), Chairman of the BOARD OF PAROLE, opposes the petition and seeks its dismissal.

Petitioner GAROFOLO contends that he was wrongfully denied a discretionary parole release by respondent PAROLE BOARD. The basis of the instant petition is that respondent PAROLE BOARD acted unlawfully because: the term of Parole Commissioner Jennifer Arena, one of the three Parole Commissioners at the July 8, 2008 hearing, had expired; certain comments of Parole Commissioner James B. Ferguson during petitioner’s hearing demonstrated reliance on matters not within the purview of the PAROLE BOARD; and, the PAROLE BOARD’S denial of parole release was based solely on petitioner’s underlying criminal offenses to the exclusion of all other statutorily mandated factors of consideration, which, pursuant to Matter of Russo v New York State Board of Parole is “irrationality bordering on impropriety.”

Published on: July 8, 2012

Court Allows Use of Expert Witness to Establish False Confession was Made

by Stephen Bilkis

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.