New York

Published on: July 24, 2012

Defendant Files Motion to Dismiss Due to Transactional Immunity

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1980, the district attorney summons a grand jury to investigate allegations concerning a gas company. In connection with that investigation, the district attorney issued a subpoena directing the company’s president, to present to the grand jury numerous books and records of the company.

In addition,a New York Criminal Lawyer said the grand jury issued a subpoena directing the president to appear and give testimony. Consequently, the president appeared and testified to the company’s sales volume, his knowledge of that volume, his involvement in the company’s operation and his knowledge of about the financial situation.

The attorney-general secured charges against the president charging him with one count of grand larceny in the second degree (sales tax evasion) and sixteen counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (false sales tax returns).

Published on: July 24, 2012

Court Discusses Elements of Asssault

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the Court of Appeals concluded that defendant acted with intent to prevent an emergency medical technician (EMT) from performing a lawful duty when he caused an EMT to suffer physical injury.

On the day before Christmas 2006 at about 2:20 A.M., two emergency medical technicians were dispatched by ambulance in response to a call for medical assistance for a woman who injured her hand and a man who suffered a bleeding face in a fight. Upon arriving in the location, the EMTs observed about 15 people in the apartment, as well as beer cans and coolers, causing the victim EMT to conclude that there had been “a party of some sorts.” The injured woman complained of pain in her right hand, on which she had placed an ice pack; she told the EMTs that “she had been in a verbal altercation with somebody, and punched a wall with her right hand.” The EMTs did not see and were not directed to or approached by anyone bleeding from the face. After treating the woman, the EMTs left the apartment and head back to the ambulance.

As one of the EMTs was about to climbed into the ambulance, defendant came to him and threw a beer can to the EMT’s head (assault). Defendant hit him in the back of the head, grabbed his sweater collar and threw him to the ground, where he landed face up. Defendant kneeled down on one knee and struck the EMT on his face two or three times with a closed hand. Defendant was charged criminally from the assault. Defendant argued that he could not be convicted with the crime charged since the EMTs were not performing a lawful duty since the EMTs had finished their duty upon which they were called.

Published on: July 21, 2012

Court Discusses Whistleblower Law

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was employed from a not for profit agency. She worked as a coordinator of the employment services. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when she was still a probationary, she was terminated for alleged unsatisfactory job performance. Eleven months later, she initiated an action claiming that she was terminated because of her objection to and refusal to participate in the agency’s alleged fraudulent billing to the city for placements it never made. The agency finds employment for job applicants or places them in educational or training programs, for which it receives funding from the city.

The agency moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to satisfy the two elements which are conditions precedent to the maintenance of an action under a whistleblower law. Based on records, the whistleblower law applies to relatively few situations and several proponents accepted to its narrow scope and urged broader application.

Consequently, the woman asserted that the agency’s billing practices constituted a grand larceny. The court then denied the motion and finding that the complaint states a valid reason for action under the labor law. Based on records, the part of the labor law provides that an employer shall not take any disciplinary personnel action against an employee because such employee does discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety.

Published on: July 7, 2012

Second Indictment of Defendant Nullifies First Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant of the case is Gus Franco. The case is being heard in the criminal term of the Queens County Supreme Court in the state of New York.

The defendant has moved to have the instant indictment against him dismissed. The defendant basis his argument on the grounds that there is a legal impediment for the conviction of the crimes that he is being charged with. This motion is necessary at this point in the case as there has been an issue of evidence being re-submitted in the case. The District Attorney is seeking re-submit evidence to a second grand jury and this has resulted in no true bill on all counts of the indictment.

Case History

Published on: July 2, 2012

Defendant Contends Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant of this case is Irone Bradford. The plaintiff in the case is the People of the State of New York. The case is being heard in the Trial term of the Supreme Court located in New York County. Judge Jack Rosenburg is overseeing the case.

The defendant has pled guilty to the crime of second degree robbery and is now awaiting his sentence. The defendant is making an attack on the constitutionality of section 60.05 of the Penal Law.

Case Arguments and Decisions

Published on: June 24, 2012

Court Decides if Rape Trauma Syndrome Applies

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant is charged with two counts of grand larceny in the third degree arising out of a homosexual incident between the complainant and defendant.

The People allege that the incident was consensual in nature and that defendant thereafter extorted money from the complainant by threatening to expose him as a homosexual and to bring charges of homosexual rape.

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.

Published on: November 14, 2011

SEC Accuses Former Goldman Sachs Director of Participating in Insider Trading

by Stephen Bilkis

A former director of financial firm Goldman Sachs has been accused of providing illegal business tips to the head of the Galleon Group, another financial firm. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleges that Rajat K. Gupta provided information about Warren Buffet’s intentions to invest in Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam hours before the investment was complete. This tip allowed the Galleon Group to earn $900,000 in profits after the company purchased 175,000 Goldman Sachs shares. Providing tips like this to other business people is illegal and unethical, and is charectarized as White Collar Crime.

According to the SEC, this is not the first time Gupta has provided Rajaratnam with trading tips. Gupta, who also sits on the board of Proctor and Gamble (P&G) alerted Rajaratnam of the company’s quarterly earnings early which prompted the Galleon Group to purchase shares right before quarterly earnings announcements. The Galleon Group earned more than $13.6 million in profits.

Gupta and Rajaratnam met about ten years ago during their work with the Indian School of Business. Since then, the two men have shared thousands of phone calls, lunches and formed business alliances such as the New Silk Route, a financial firm specializing in investment opportunities in India. Even though Rajaratnam’s role in New Silk Route is unclear, as he never took an active role in the firm, the two men are linked to the company, states a New York Criminal Lawyer. Gupta’s lawyer insists that the two men are friends and business colleagues and that Gupta has 40 years of experience in business and has never been accused of any illegal activities during this time.