New York City

Published on: July 29, 2012

Court Decides if States have Concurrent Jurisdiction with Federal Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the matter is the Greenview Trading Company. The defendants in the matter are Hershman & Leicher, P.C., Harold M. Hershman, Indu Craft, PLC of New York, Incorporated, and Richard Rottman. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court in the state of New York located in New York County. The acting justice in the case is David B. Saxe.

The question before the court in this case is whether state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts to hear private civil actions regarding damages under the RICO act, or are these actions only within the federal domain.

Case Background

Published on: July 28, 2012

Defendant Claims Initial Questioning by Police was Unjustified

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

An NYPD Officer, a nine-year veteran, investigates drug sales in lower Manhattan. He has made 500 narcotics-related arrests.

On 28 February 2010, the officer and his partner entered the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building. They were there to conduct a vertical floor-by-floor patrol of the premises during which the officers search for loiterers, drug users, people consuming alcohol and trespassers. In housing projects, unlike police procedures applicable to private apartment buildings, officers may question anyone they encounter to determine whether they are on the premises lawfully. Sometimes, at his discretion, the officer requires that purported residents provide identification or a key. Such individuals must prove that they are not trespassers and persons claiming to be legitimate visitors must also supply corroboration.

Published on: July 22, 2012

Court Discusses Elements of Probable Cause

by Stephen Bilkis

In a criminal case, a Westchester Criminal Lawyer said that, at approximately 9:45 a.m., a civilian resident living at 174 Tibbetts Road, Mr. James Nolan, heard his doorbell ring. When he answered the door, he observed a male Hispanic, wearing a blue jacket and yellow hood, who asked him if he had a room available. When Mr. Nolan stated he did not, the Hispanic male apologized and walked away. Mr. Nolan observed the Hispanic male cross the street towards 175 Tibbetts Road and saw him ring that doorbell; no one answered the door and the Hispanic male crossed the street again and walked toward 178 Tibbetts Road. When the Hispanic male arrived at 178 Tibbetts Road, he rang that doorbell as well, and Mr. Michael McGee opened the door. Mr. McGee testified that there was a male Hispanic at his door inquiring if he had a room available. When Mr. McGee responded that he did not have a room available, the male Hispanic thanked him and walked away. Mr. Nolan, Mr. McGee’s next door neighbor, observed the exchange and continued to observe the male Hispanic continue walking northbound towards another house. When Mr. Nolan was unable to see the male Hispanic from his home, he went outside to his front porch and observed a yellow moped at the side of a hedge within his property of 174 Tibbetts Road. Within minutes, Mr. Nolan observed the Hispanic male come back to his property, pick up the yellow moped and walk northbound. Mr. Nolan lost sight of the male Hispanic and got in his pick up truck, which was parked across the street, to see if he could locate and observe the male Hispanic. When Mr. Nolan crossed the street he discovered that the yellow moped he had previously seen in his property was behind a bush at186 Tibbetts Road. Mr. Nolan was in his truck approximately seven (7) to eight (8) minutes, when he saw the male Hispanic run down the side of 184 Tibbetts Road. Mr. Nolan called 911; as he was reporting the incident, he observed the male Hispanic pick up the yellow moped and drive toward McLean Avenue. Mr. McGee also testified that he observed the male Hispanic drive the yellow moped toward McLean Avenue.

Thereafter, a Westchester Criminal Lawyer said that, several Yonkers police officers heard a radio transmission reporting a suspicious person in the vicinity of Tibbetts Road; the description transmitted was that of a male Hispanic, wearing a blue jacket, yellow collar and driving a yellow scooter. It was further transmitted that he was observed ringing doorbells in that vicinity. Several units responded to this radio transmission as the police investigation was swiftly developing; officers transmitted, through the radio, that the description of this suspect fit the description of a repetitive burglar who had been burglarizing the area for the past several weeks and that the burglary suspect also drove a yellow scooter. Sergeant Kreso, one of the responding officers, drove to 174 Tibbetts Road where he encountered Mr. Nolan and Mr. McGee. At the scene, both Nolan and McGee described the individual to Sgt. Kreso. Another officer who also responded to Mr. Nolan’s 911 call searched 184 Tibbetts Road and that officer discovered that there was an open window at that location; the description of the suspect was again transmitted over the radio as well as the fact that an open window was observed by police officers at 184 Tibbetts Road.

Detective Benash was on duty the morning of the incident, and had been listening to the various radio transmissions describing a suspected repetitive burglar driving a yellow moped in the vicinity. Detective Benash was on an observation spot on the west side of the McLean Avenue bridge when he observed a male on a yellow scooter, with no license plates, wearing a blue jacket, yellow collar, driving on the wrong side of the McLean Avenue bridge. As the suspect drove by on the yellow scooter, Det. Benash exited his unmarked police vehicle and grabbed a hold of the yellow scooter’s handlebars; other officers arrived at the scene simultaneously and assisted Detective Benash. When the suspect came to a stop, Det. Benash informed the individual that he was investigating an incident and directed the suspect to sit by the street curb. One of the officers at the scene transmitted over the radio that an individual fitting the description of the burglary suspect had been detained in the area of McLean Avenue.

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 7, 2012

Defendant Requests Case be Moved to Prevent Prejudice

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The People of the State of New York are the appellants in the case. The respondent of the case is Sterling Moore. Judge Wachtler is hearing the case.

The defendant was convicted in Kings County for sexual abuse and rape in the first degree. The offenses that the defendant was charged with occurred in his car that was parked in Queens County near the border of Kings County. The trial court gave jurisdiction to the Kings County Court for prosecution. The Appellate division reversed this order of jurisdiction and ordered a new trial. The reason was that there was a question of if the crimes were committed within 500 yards of the boundary of the two counties in question.

The People of the State of New York are appealing this reversal and argue that Kings County did have jurisdiction over the case under CPL 20.40 that states that any offense that is committed in a vehicle can be tried in any county that the vehicle passed through during the trip.

Published on: July 6, 2012

Defendant Challenges Sex Offender Risk Assessment

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant of the case is Anthony Sumpter. The case is being heard in the Criminal Court of the city of New York located in Queens County. Judge Sheryl L. Parker is overseeing the case.

The defendant has been charged with a felony complaint of second degree rape and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant entered a plea bargain and he pled guilty to attempted rape in the third degree. He was sentenced to six months in jail.

In cases such as this it is required by law that the defendant be assessed using a Risk Assessment Instrument to determine the risk of reoffending. The defendant was found to be a level two or a moderate risk for reoffending. The defendant is challenging this assessment.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Defendant Contends Impropriety of Prosecutors Office

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 10, 1992, the area of east 213th Street and Bronxwood Avenue in the Bronx, New York was a hotbed of drug activity. Rival drug gangs competed with each other for the drug turf using guns and violence to hold their sales areas. On this night, two brothers who were in control of that particular area, were seated in the back of a BMW parked at the corner when they were executed (murder) by a man with a gun. Both brothers were killed in the attack.

The trial that ensued convicted the defendant of being responsible for their murders. That conviction was appealed by the defendant based on the contention that he was not the man who shot (gun crime) the brothers, a juror in the trial was related to him, and that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct. At the time of his initial trial, there were five witnesses that testified that they saw the defendant kill the brothers.

These witnesses who were also drug dealers, were arrested at different times before this appeal was filed. One of the main witnesses claims that he was continually harassed by the defendant who was attempting to get him to change his testimony. He presented letters that had been sent to him from the defendant and friends of the defendant that told him that he would be killed if he did not recant his testimony. Two of the five witnesses had already met violent ends that were not attributed directly to the defendant who was in prison. After receiving one such letter, the witness applied to be transferred to a different institution for fear of his life. However, when he was transferred, it was to the same institution where the defendant was housed. This created several tense situations as the defendant had opportunity to encounter the witness on several occasions. The defendant repeatedly claimed that it was the witness who had actually executed the brothers and that he was framed for the murders.

Published on: May 6, 2012

Court Hears Appeal for Retail Theft

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant of the case is Dude Emshwiller. The appellee in the case is the State of Florida. The case is being heard in the second district of the District Court of Appeal in Florida.

Appeal

Dude Emshwiller, the appellant is appealing his original judgment and sentencing. The original sentence is for three years on the charges of grand theft.

Published on: May 5, 2012

Store Issues Flyer Warning of Habitual Shoplifter

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is Edgar Paul, et al. The respondent of the case is Edward Charles Davis, III.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said he original case was heard and argued on the fourth of November in 1975. The original verdict of the case was given on the 23rd of March in 1976. A rehearing of the case was denied in May of 1976.

The original case involves a photograph of the respondent that was being used in a flyer that had pictures of active shoplifters. This photograph was used after the respondent had been convicted of shoplifting near Louisville, Kentucky. The shoplifting (petit larceny) charge was dismissed and the respondent then brought this case up against the petitioner police chiefs that issued the flyers. He states that this was a violation of his constitutional rights. The original district court that heard the case granted a dismissal motion from the petitioners.

Published on: May 5, 2012

Suspect Subjected to Strip Search

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellee in the case is Lynda L. Watt. The defendant and appellant of the case is the Police Department of the City of Richardson.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer the City of Richardson is appealing the finding of the district court that states that the strip search that was performed was constitutionally invalid.